MDedge ObGyn

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

As reproductive specialists, part of our obligation is to improve a woman’s or couple’s ability to conceive in the most cost-effective manner, ideally through natural attempts at conception. While assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have provided impressive pregnancy rates across many diagnoses, including unexplained infertility, this advanced procedure comes with a significant financial cost to those without insurance and an emotional burden from the lack of a guaranteed outcome. Infertility procedures have minimal associated but potentially significant risks, most importantly multiple gestations. Contrary to popular belief, ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment has a greater risk of high-order multiple gestation when compared with IVF, given the inability of the former to control the number of embryos that may enter and implant in the endometrial cavity and the increased use of single embryo transfers with the latter. The specialist should evaluate the woman or couple for the basic issues of ovulation, tubal, and sperm function, as well as for lifestyle and environmental factors that can impede reproduction. As a result, “one size fits all” should not apply to patients, specifically those with infertility. This month’s column will present the detrimental effect of environmental and lifestyle factors on the goal of enhancing fertility through natural cycles of urine luteinizing-hormone timed intercourse.

Nutrition

Often overlooked in the infertility evaluation, an optimal diet improves fertility for both partners. Processed meat has been associated with reduced sperm quality. In ART, red meat has been associated with decreased embryo blastocyst formation. Lower trans fatty acids and higher omega-3s may improve fecundity. Considered one of the best overall diets, the Mediterranean diet consists of plant-based foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices. Olive oil is the main source of added fat whereas fish, seafood, dairy, and poultry should be eaten in moderation. Fatty fish, such as mackerel, herring, sardines, albacore tuna, and salmon, are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to improve fecundity and IVF success, and have a positive association with blastocyst embryo development.^1-3

Stress

The emotional effect of an infertility diagnosis has been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities.⁴ Whether stress causes or is a result of infertility has been a longstanding debate.⁵ Nevertheless, stress is the number-one reason patients discontinue fertility treatment.⁶ As fertility specialists, we must be cognizant of the devastation endured by infertility patients and maintain an open dialogue, as well as provide resources for coping strategies and counseling.

One popular method of improving mental health and fertility has been acupuncture. Initial enthusiasm originated from one of the first studies to explore the use of acupuncture during IVF. This was a prospective randomized study that showed treated patients had an approximately 100% improvement in clinical pregnancy rate. Unfortunately, there was no appropriate control group, just untreated controls.⁷ A subsequent study by the same investigator added a placebo acupuncture control group and did not show a statistically significant increase in pregnancy rates.⁸ Finally, a meta-analysis and reanalysis did not demonstrate any improvement in pregnancy outcome, whereas three of the studies analyzed suggested a possible reduction in pregnancies; placebo acupuncture was shown to have a higher success rate.^9-11 While acupuncture is relatively safe, there appears to be only a placebo effect that may be helpful.

The effect of stress on reproduction has been addressed in one of my previous columns.
 

Alcohol and caffeine

The damaging effects of alcohol on the fetus during pregnancy are legion – abnormal facial features, microcephaly, low birth weight, hyperactive behavior, vision or hearing deficits, speech and language delays, and intellectual disability. Less known is the amount of alcohol that may have an effect during preconception. One of the first reports on the effect of alcohol on IVF concluded: a 13% decrease in the number of eggs aspirated; a 2.86 times increase in risk of not achieving pregnancy; and a 2.21 times increase in risk of miscarriage. For men, one additional drink per day increased the risk of not achieving a live birth from 2.28 to 8.32 times.¹² Subsequent studies demonstrate a 16% reduction in IVF pregnancies in women who have at least four drinks per week; when the couple drank at least four drinks per week, the pregnancy rate decreased by 21%.¹³

However, a study from Denmark did not demonstrate a negative effect of low to moderate pretreatment amounts of alcohol and caffeine on IVF outcomes.¹⁴ Nevertheless, there is evidence that reducing or abstaining from alcohol intake may improve IVF outcomes.¹⁵ While there have been reports of higher miscarriage rates from caffeine,^16,17 not all reports support a negative association.¹⁸

Smoking

The use of tobacco has been estimated to contribute to 13% of female infertility in a dose-response manner, including secondhand smoke. During ART, smoking reduces ovarian response to gonadotropins and decreases IVF success by up to 50%. Discontinuing smoking for 6 months beforehand appears to restore normal outcomes.^19-20

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee on smoking provides the following invaluable information to share with patients on the harmful reproductive effects of smoking:²¹

• Early menopause by accelerating the loss of eggs.
• Higher rates of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
• A decrease in sperm function.
• Possible genetic damage to eggs and sperm.
• Reduced sperm in son from maternal smoking.

Weight and exercise

Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction;²² a lower chance for conception;²³ and infertility.²⁴ Obese women have higher rates of miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage, reduced success with ART, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. During pregnancy, obese women have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,²⁵ as well as likelihood of having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3-2.1 times higher risk of stillbirth.²⁶

Regarding physical activity, the rate of pregnancies (39.0% vs. 16.0%, P = .002) and live births (24.4% vs. 7.4% (P = .004) were higher with regular exercise vs. being sedentary. Obese women who exercised regularly had a live birth rate over threefold higher compared with those who were not active.²⁷ Moderation should be employed given that women who exercise to exhaustion have 2.3 times the odds of fertility problems.²⁸ In men, obesity has been shown to increase estrogens and reduce spermatogenesis. Exercise has improved semen parameters and testosterone. Paternal physical and sedentary activities were not related to clinical pregnancy or live birth rates following infertility treatment.²⁹ As in women, men experience negative effects from high-intensity exercise, including bicycling, which can result in decreased semen parameters, follicle-stimulating hormone, LH, and testosterone levels.³⁰

In couples desiring a more natural approach to infertility, fertility specialists can address environmental and lifestyle factors that may improve reproduction. When natural attempts at conception are not applicable or successful, IUI and ART are appropriate treatment options after considering estimated success rates as well as the physical, emotional, and financial investment of patients.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Wise LA et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:60-74.

2. Chui Y-H. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:156-65.

3. Ferreira Braga DPA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:30-8.

4. Domar AD et al. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[suppl]:45-52.

5. Trolice MP. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:873-5.

6. Gameiro S et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18[6]:652-69.

7. Paulus WE et al. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:721-4.

8. Paulus WE et al. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:S18(abstr).

9. Wing SSE et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:341-8.

10. Hong Zheng C et al. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:599-611.

11. Meldrum DR et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1821-4.

12. Klonoff-Cohen H et al. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:330-9.

13. Rossi BV et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:136-42.

14. Abadia L et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1846-54.

15. Gormack AA et al. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1617.

16. James JE. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26:114-15.

17. Gaskins AJ et al. Eur J Nutr. 2018 Feb;57:107-17.

18. Machtinger R et al. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:1026-33.

19. Hughes EG et al. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:807.

20. de Ziegler D et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:927-8.

21. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:611-8.

22. Brewer CJ, Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

23. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

24. Silvestris S et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16[1]:22.

25. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

26. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

27. Palomba S et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:72-9.

28. Gudmundsdottir SL et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24[12]:3196-204.

29. Gaskins AJ et al. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2575-82.

30. Wise LA et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1025-30.

As reproductive specialists, part of our obligation is to improve a woman’s or couple’s ability to conceive in the most cost-effective manner, ideally through natural attempts at conception. While assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have provided impressive pregnancy rates across many diagnoses, including unexplained infertility, this advanced procedure comes with a significant financial cost to those without insurance and an emotional burden from the lack of a guaranteed outcome. Infertility procedures have minimal associated but potentially significant risks, most importantly multiple gestations. Contrary to popular belief, ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment has a greater risk of high-order multiple gestation when compared with IVF, given the inability of the former to control the number of embryos that may enter and implant in the endometrial cavity and the increased use of single embryo transfers with the latter. The specialist should evaluate the woman or couple for the basic issues of ovulation, tubal, and sperm function, as well as for lifestyle and environmental factors that can impede reproduction. As a result, “one size fits all” should not apply to patients, specifically those with infertility. This month’s column will present the detrimental effect of environmental and lifestyle factors on the goal of enhancing fertility through natural cycles of urine luteinizing-hormone timed intercourse.

Nutrition

Often overlooked in the infertility evaluation, an optimal diet improves fertility for both partners. Processed meat has been associated with reduced sperm quality. In ART, red meat has been associated with decreased embryo blastocyst formation. Lower trans fatty acids and higher omega-3s may improve fecundity. Considered one of the best overall diets, the Mediterranean diet consists of plant-based foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices. Olive oil is the main source of added fat whereas fish, seafood, dairy, and poultry should be eaten in moderation. Fatty fish, such as mackerel, herring, sardines, albacore tuna, and salmon, are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to improve fecundity and IVF success, and have a positive association with blastocyst embryo development.^1-3

Stress

The emotional effect of an infertility diagnosis has been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities.⁴ Whether stress causes or is a result of infertility has been a longstanding debate.⁵ Nevertheless, stress is the number-one reason patients discontinue fertility treatment.⁶ As fertility specialists, we must be cognizant of the devastation endured by infertility patients and maintain an open dialogue, as well as provide resources for coping strategies and counseling.

One popular method of improving mental health and fertility has been acupuncture. Initial enthusiasm originated from one of the first studies to explore the use of acupuncture during IVF. This was a prospective randomized study that showed treated patients had an approximately 100% improvement in clinical pregnancy rate. Unfortunately, there was no appropriate control group, just untreated controls.⁷ A subsequent study by the same investigator added a placebo acupuncture control group and did not show a statistically significant increase in pregnancy rates.⁸ Finally, a meta-analysis and reanalysis did not demonstrate any improvement in pregnancy outcome, whereas three of the studies analyzed suggested a possible reduction in pregnancies; placebo acupuncture was shown to have a higher success rate.^9-11 While acupuncture is relatively safe, there appears to be only a placebo effect that may be helpful.

The effect of stress on reproduction has been addressed in one of my previous columns.
 

Alcohol and caffeine

The damaging effects of alcohol on the fetus during pregnancy are legion – abnormal facial features, microcephaly, low birth weight, hyperactive behavior, vision or hearing deficits, speech and language delays, and intellectual disability. Less known is the amount of alcohol that may have an effect during preconception. One of the first reports on the effect of alcohol on IVF concluded: a 13% decrease in the number of eggs aspirated; a 2.86 times increase in risk of not achieving pregnancy; and a 2.21 times increase in risk of miscarriage. For men, one additional drink per day increased the risk of not achieving a live birth from 2.28 to 8.32 times.¹² Subsequent studies demonstrate a 16% reduction in IVF pregnancies in women who have at least four drinks per week; when the couple drank at least four drinks per week, the pregnancy rate decreased by 21%.¹³

However, a study from Denmark did not demonstrate a negative effect of low to moderate pretreatment amounts of alcohol and caffeine on IVF outcomes.¹⁴ Nevertheless, there is evidence that reducing or abstaining from alcohol intake may improve IVF outcomes.¹⁵ While there have been reports of higher miscarriage rates from caffeine,^16,17 not all reports support a negative association.¹⁸

Smoking

The use of tobacco has been estimated to contribute to 13% of female infertility in a dose-response manner, including secondhand smoke. During ART, smoking reduces ovarian response to gonadotropins and decreases IVF success by up to 50%. Discontinuing smoking for 6 months beforehand appears to restore normal outcomes.^19-20

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee on smoking provides the following invaluable information to share with patients on the harmful reproductive effects of smoking:²¹

• Early menopause by accelerating the loss of eggs.
• Higher rates of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
• A decrease in sperm function.
• Possible genetic damage to eggs and sperm.
• Reduced sperm in son from maternal smoking.

Weight and exercise

Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction;²² a lower chance for conception;²³ and infertility.²⁴ Obese women have higher rates of miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage, reduced success with ART, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. During pregnancy, obese women have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,²⁵ as well as likelihood of having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3-2.1 times higher risk of stillbirth.²⁶

Regarding physical activity, the rate of pregnancies (39.0% vs. 16.0%, P = .002) and live births (24.4% vs. 7.4% (P = .004) were higher with regular exercise vs. being sedentary. Obese women who exercised regularly had a live birth rate over threefold higher compared with those who were not active.²⁷ Moderation should be employed given that women who exercise to exhaustion have 2.3 times the odds of fertility problems.²⁸ In men, obesity has been shown to increase estrogens and reduce spermatogenesis. Exercise has improved semen parameters and testosterone. Paternal physical and sedentary activities were not related to clinical pregnancy or live birth rates following infertility treatment.²⁹ As in women, men experience negative effects from high-intensity exercise, including bicycling, which can result in decreased semen parameters, follicle-stimulating hormone, LH, and testosterone levels.³⁰

In couples desiring a more natural approach to infertility, fertility specialists can address environmental and lifestyle factors that may improve reproduction. When natural attempts at conception are not applicable or successful, IUI and ART are appropriate treatment options after considering estimated success rates as well as the physical, emotional, and financial investment of patients.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Wise LA et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:60-74.

2. Chui Y-H. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:156-65.

3. Ferreira Braga DPA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:30-8.

4. Domar AD et al. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[suppl]:45-52.

5. Trolice MP. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:873-5.

6. Gameiro S et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18[6]:652-69.

7. Paulus WE et al. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:721-4.

8. Paulus WE et al. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:S18(abstr).

9. Wing SSE et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:341-8.

10. Hong Zheng C et al. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:599-611.

11. Meldrum DR et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1821-4.

12. Klonoff-Cohen H et al. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:330-9.

13. Rossi BV et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:136-42.

14. Abadia L et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1846-54.

15. Gormack AA et al. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1617.

16. James JE. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26:114-15.

17. Gaskins AJ et al. Eur J Nutr. 2018 Feb;57:107-17.

18. Machtinger R et al. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:1026-33.

19. Hughes EG et al. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:807.

20. de Ziegler D et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:927-8.

21. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:611-8.

22. Brewer CJ, Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

23. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

24. Silvestris S et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16[1]:22.

25. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

26. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

27. Palomba S et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:72-9.

28. Gudmundsdottir SL et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24[12]:3196-204.

29. Gaskins AJ et al. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2575-82.

30. Wise LA et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1025-30.

As reproductive specialists, part of our obligation is to improve a woman’s or couple’s ability to conceive in the most cost-effective manner, ideally through natural attempts at conception. While assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have provided impressive pregnancy rates across many diagnoses, including unexplained infertility, this advanced procedure comes with a significant financial cost to those without insurance and an emotional burden from the lack of a guaranteed outcome. Infertility procedures have minimal associated but potentially significant risks, most importantly multiple gestations. Contrary to popular belief, ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment has a greater risk of high-order multiple gestation when compared with IVF, given the inability of the former to control the number of embryos that may enter and implant in the endometrial cavity and the increased use of single embryo transfers with the latter. The specialist should evaluate the woman or couple for the basic issues of ovulation, tubal, and sperm function, as well as for lifestyle and environmental factors that can impede reproduction. As a result, “one size fits all” should not apply to patients, specifically those with infertility. This month’s column will present the detrimental effect of environmental and lifestyle factors on the goal of enhancing fertility through natural cycles of urine luteinizing-hormone timed intercourse.

Nutrition

Often overlooked in the infertility evaluation, an optimal diet improves fertility for both partners. Processed meat has been associated with reduced sperm quality. In ART, red meat has been associated with decreased embryo blastocyst formation. Lower trans fatty acids and higher omega-3s may improve fecundity. Considered one of the best overall diets, the Mediterranean diet consists of plant-based foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices. Olive oil is the main source of added fat whereas fish, seafood, dairy, and poultry should be eaten in moderation. Fatty fish, such as mackerel, herring, sardines, albacore tuna, and salmon, are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to improve fecundity and IVF success, and have a positive association with blastocyst embryo development.^1-3

Stress

The emotional effect of an infertility diagnosis has been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities.⁴ Whether stress causes or is a result of infertility has been a longstanding debate.⁵ Nevertheless, stress is the number-one reason patients discontinue fertility treatment.⁶ As fertility specialists, we must be cognizant of the devastation endured by infertility patients and maintain an open dialogue, as well as provide resources for coping strategies and counseling.

One popular method of improving mental health and fertility has been acupuncture. Initial enthusiasm originated from one of the first studies to explore the use of acupuncture during IVF. This was a prospective randomized study that showed treated patients had an approximately 100% improvement in clinical pregnancy rate. Unfortunately, there was no appropriate control group, just untreated controls.⁷ A subsequent study by the same investigator added a placebo acupuncture control group and did not show a statistically significant increase in pregnancy rates.⁸ Finally, a meta-analysis and reanalysis did not demonstrate any improvement in pregnancy outcome, whereas three of the studies analyzed suggested a possible reduction in pregnancies; placebo acupuncture was shown to have a higher success rate.^9-11 While acupuncture is relatively safe, there appears to be only a placebo effect that may be helpful.

The effect of stress on reproduction has been addressed in one of my previous columns.
 

Alcohol and caffeine

The damaging effects of alcohol on the fetus during pregnancy are legion – abnormal facial features, microcephaly, low birth weight, hyperactive behavior, vision or hearing deficits, speech and language delays, and intellectual disability. Less known is the amount of alcohol that may have an effect during preconception. One of the first reports on the effect of alcohol on IVF concluded: a 13% decrease in the number of eggs aspirated; a 2.86 times increase in risk of not achieving pregnancy; and a 2.21 times increase in risk of miscarriage. For men, one additional drink per day increased the risk of not achieving a live birth from 2.28 to 8.32 times.¹² Subsequent studies demonstrate a 16% reduction in IVF pregnancies in women who have at least four drinks per week; when the couple drank at least four drinks per week, the pregnancy rate decreased by 21%.¹³

However, a study from Denmark did not demonstrate a negative effect of low to moderate pretreatment amounts of alcohol and caffeine on IVF outcomes.¹⁴ Nevertheless, there is evidence that reducing or abstaining from alcohol intake may improve IVF outcomes.¹⁵ While there have been reports of higher miscarriage rates from caffeine,^16,17 not all reports support a negative association.¹⁸

Smoking

The use of tobacco has been estimated to contribute to 13% of female infertility in a dose-response manner, including secondhand smoke. During ART, smoking reduces ovarian response to gonadotropins and decreases IVF success by up to 50%. Discontinuing smoking for 6 months beforehand appears to restore normal outcomes.^19-20

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee on smoking provides the following invaluable information to share with patients on the harmful reproductive effects of smoking:²¹

• Early menopause by accelerating the loss of eggs.
• Higher rates of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
• A decrease in sperm function.
• Possible genetic damage to eggs and sperm.
• Reduced sperm in son from maternal smoking.

Weight and exercise

Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction;²² a lower chance for conception;²³ and infertility.²⁴ Obese women have higher rates of miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage, reduced success with ART, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. During pregnancy, obese women have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,²⁵ as well as likelihood of having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3-2.1 times higher risk of stillbirth.²⁶

Regarding physical activity, the rate of pregnancies (39.0% vs. 16.0%, P = .002) and live births (24.4% vs. 7.4% (P = .004) were higher with regular exercise vs. being sedentary. Obese women who exercised regularly had a live birth rate over threefold higher compared with those who were not active.²⁷ Moderation should be employed given that women who exercise to exhaustion have 2.3 times the odds of fertility problems.²⁸ In men, obesity has been shown to increase estrogens and reduce spermatogenesis. Exercise has improved semen parameters and testosterone. Paternal physical and sedentary activities were not related to clinical pregnancy or live birth rates following infertility treatment.²⁹ As in women, men experience negative effects from high-intensity exercise, including bicycling, which can result in decreased semen parameters, follicle-stimulating hormone, LH, and testosterone levels.³⁰

In couples desiring a more natural approach to infertility, fertility specialists can address environmental and lifestyle factors that may improve reproduction. When natural attempts at conception are not applicable or successful, IUI and ART are appropriate treatment options after considering estimated success rates as well as the physical, emotional, and financial investment of patients.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Wise LA et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:60-74.

2. Chui Y-H. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:156-65.

3. Ferreira Braga DPA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:30-8.

4. Domar AD et al. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[suppl]:45-52.

5. Trolice MP. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:873-5.

6. Gameiro S et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18[6]:652-69.

7. Paulus WE et al. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:721-4.

8. Paulus WE et al. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:S18(abstr).

9. Wing SSE et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:341-8.

10. Hong Zheng C et al. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:599-611.

11. Meldrum DR et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1821-4.

12. Klonoff-Cohen H et al. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:330-9.

13. Rossi BV et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:136-42.

14. Abadia L et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1846-54.

15. Gormack AA et al. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1617.

16. James JE. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26:114-15.

17. Gaskins AJ et al. Eur J Nutr. 2018 Feb;57:107-17.

18. Machtinger R et al. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:1026-33.

19. Hughes EG et al. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:807.

20. de Ziegler D et al. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:927-8.

21. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:611-8.

22. Brewer CJ, Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

23. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

24. Silvestris S et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16[1]:22.

25. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

26. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

27. Palomba S et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:72-9.

28. Gudmundsdottir SL et al. Hum Reprod. 2009;24[12]:3196-204.

29. Gaskins AJ et al. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2575-82.

30. Wise LA et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1025-30.

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Ashbrook M, et al. Management of complicated appendicitis during pregnancy in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5:e227555. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7555.

Expert Commentary

Over the last decade, the management of acute appendicitis in the nonpregnant adult has evolved such that some authorities favor first-line nonoperative therapy in the appropriate candidate, including some individuals with complicated appendicitis. While the conventional teaching regarding appendicitis in pregnancy has always been immediate surgery, favorable outcomes from nonoperative management in the nonpregnant population have led to an increasing application of conservative therapy in pregnancy, particularly among patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. However, optimal management of complicated appendicitis in pregnancy is unclear, as the risks of both operative and nonoperative management can be significant.

Details about the study

This retrospective cohort study using data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) focuses on outcomes of various management options among pregnant women with complicated appendicitis from January 2003 to September 2015. Complicated appendicitis refers to individuals with appendiceal perforation with peritonitis (a free perforation) or phlegmon/abscess (a walled-off perforation). Women included in the study were identified using ICD-9 codes for both pregnancy and complicated appendicitis; they were categorized into 3 groups: immediate operative management, successful nonoperative management, and failed nonoperative management (defined as surgical intervention >1 day after admission). The clinical and other outcomes of interest included maternal death, preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, amniotic infection, sepsis, pneumonia, antenatal hemorrhage, and premature rupture of membranes. Outcomes included are those that occurred during the hospitalization for appendicitis; outcomes that may have occurred between discharge from the appendicitis hospitalization to the delivery hospitalization are not included in this study.

A total of 8,087 pregnant women with complicated appendicitis were included in this study, of whom 954 (11.8%) had successful nonoperative management, 2,646 (32.7%) had failed nonoperative management, and 4,487 (55.5%) had immediate operative management. First, when comparing successful nonoperative management to immediate operative management, there were no differences in preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, or antenatal hemorrhage; however, successful nonoperative management was also associated with higher risks of maternal infectious complications, including risks of amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. When comparing failed nonoperative management (women who required surgical intervention during the index hospitalization) to immediate operative management, failed conservative management was associated with higher risks of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. For every 1 day that surgery was delayed in the group of women who failed nonoperative management, the odds of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, sepsis, amniotic infection, and pneumonia increased.

Study strengths and weaknesses

Database studies have inherent limitations that are overcome with strength in numbers. In this study, our understanding of outcomes associated with management of complicated appendicitis assumes that women were correctly identified as both being pregnant and having complicated appendicitis (as opposed to uncomplicated appendicitis but miscoded). Clinical data that may have led to selection of one management strategy over another, or specific clinical management decisions, are not possible to extract from the NIS. For instance, did nonoperative management systematically include percutaneous guided drainage if an abscess was noted, and appropriately targeted antibiotic therapy? If delayed operative intervention with IV antibiotics to allow for “cooling off” of the abdomen prior to surgery was planned, this strategy would have been included in the failed nonoperative management group, when in fact nonoperative management was never the plan. Whether gestational age (which is not known in this study), or any other clinical data contributed to the initially chosen management strategy is not known.

The treating clinicians, obstetricians and surgeons alike, would like to know the pregnancy outcome when considering the various management strategies for complicated appendicitis. However, this study only provides insight into the outcomes for the hospitalization for appendicitis. Whether or not women categorized as successful nonoperative management go on to require surgery or have preterm labor in the future, or whether women with successful immediate surgical management might be readmitted with complications, is not known. This is a significant limitation of the database, which does not allow for linking of individual hospitalizations, and rather can provide only a snapshot in time.

This study includes a fairly long timespan–2003 to 2015–during which the management of complicated appendicitis was actively evolving. Early in this time frame, nonoperative management outside of pregnancy was uncommon, and nonoperative management may have been even rarer and perhaps reserved for the most ill of pregnant women on presentation (for whom surgery may have been considered too risky without a short time with IV antibiotics to “cool off” the abdomen). As time progressed over the study span, nonoperative management was likely offered with greater frequency and among women with lesser degrees of illness. However, the year of presentation was not controlled for in this study.

Finally, given the differences noted in management strategy by race/ethnicity and type of hospital, it is not clear how this bias influences the findings from this study. ●

Ashbrook M, et al. Management of complicated appendicitis during pregnancy in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5:e227555. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7555.

Expert Commentary

Over the last decade, the management of acute appendicitis in the nonpregnant adult has evolved such that some authorities favor first-line nonoperative therapy in the appropriate candidate, including some individuals with complicated appendicitis. While the conventional teaching regarding appendicitis in pregnancy has always been immediate surgery, favorable outcomes from nonoperative management in the nonpregnant population have led to an increasing application of conservative therapy in pregnancy, particularly among patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. However, optimal management of complicated appendicitis in pregnancy is unclear, as the risks of both operative and nonoperative management can be significant.

Details about the study

This retrospective cohort study using data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) focuses on outcomes of various management options among pregnant women with complicated appendicitis from January 2003 to September 2015. Complicated appendicitis refers to individuals with appendiceal perforation with peritonitis (a free perforation) or phlegmon/abscess (a walled-off perforation). Women included in the study were identified using ICD-9 codes for both pregnancy and complicated appendicitis; they were categorized into 3 groups: immediate operative management, successful nonoperative management, and failed nonoperative management (defined as surgical intervention >1 day after admission). The clinical and other outcomes of interest included maternal death, preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, amniotic infection, sepsis, pneumonia, antenatal hemorrhage, and premature rupture of membranes. Outcomes included are those that occurred during the hospitalization for appendicitis; outcomes that may have occurred between discharge from the appendicitis hospitalization to the delivery hospitalization are not included in this study.

A total of 8,087 pregnant women with complicated appendicitis were included in this study, of whom 954 (11.8%) had successful nonoperative management, 2,646 (32.7%) had failed nonoperative management, and 4,487 (55.5%) had immediate operative management. First, when comparing successful nonoperative management to immediate operative management, there were no differences in preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, or antenatal hemorrhage; however, successful nonoperative management was also associated with higher risks of maternal infectious complications, including risks of amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. When comparing failed nonoperative management (women who required surgical intervention during the index hospitalization) to immediate operative management, failed conservative management was associated with higher risks of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. For every 1 day that surgery was delayed in the group of women who failed nonoperative management, the odds of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, sepsis, amniotic infection, and pneumonia increased.

Study strengths and weaknesses

Database studies have inherent limitations that are overcome with strength in numbers. In this study, our understanding of outcomes associated with management of complicated appendicitis assumes that women were correctly identified as both being pregnant and having complicated appendicitis (as opposed to uncomplicated appendicitis but miscoded). Clinical data that may have led to selection of one management strategy over another, or specific clinical management decisions, are not possible to extract from the NIS. For instance, did nonoperative management systematically include percutaneous guided drainage if an abscess was noted, and appropriately targeted antibiotic therapy? If delayed operative intervention with IV antibiotics to allow for “cooling off” of the abdomen prior to surgery was planned, this strategy would have been included in the failed nonoperative management group, when in fact nonoperative management was never the plan. Whether gestational age (which is not known in this study), or any other clinical data contributed to the initially chosen management strategy is not known.

The treating clinicians, obstetricians and surgeons alike, would like to know the pregnancy outcome when considering the various management strategies for complicated appendicitis. However, this study only provides insight into the outcomes for the hospitalization for appendicitis. Whether or not women categorized as successful nonoperative management go on to require surgery or have preterm labor in the future, or whether women with successful immediate surgical management might be readmitted with complications, is not known. This is a significant limitation of the database, which does not allow for linking of individual hospitalizations, and rather can provide only a snapshot in time.

This study includes a fairly long timespan–2003 to 2015–during which the management of complicated appendicitis was actively evolving. Early in this time frame, nonoperative management outside of pregnancy was uncommon, and nonoperative management may have been even rarer and perhaps reserved for the most ill of pregnant women on presentation (for whom surgery may have been considered too risky without a short time with IV antibiotics to “cool off” the abdomen). As time progressed over the study span, nonoperative management was likely offered with greater frequency and among women with lesser degrees of illness. However, the year of presentation was not controlled for in this study.

Finally, given the differences noted in management strategy by race/ethnicity and type of hospital, it is not clear how this bias influences the findings from this study. ●

Ashbrook M, et al. Management of complicated appendicitis during pregnancy in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5:e227555. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7555.

Expert Commentary

Over the last decade, the management of acute appendicitis in the nonpregnant adult has evolved such that some authorities favor first-line nonoperative therapy in the appropriate candidate, including some individuals with complicated appendicitis. While the conventional teaching regarding appendicitis in pregnancy has always been immediate surgery, favorable outcomes from nonoperative management in the nonpregnant population have led to an increasing application of conservative therapy in pregnancy, particularly among patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. However, optimal management of complicated appendicitis in pregnancy is unclear, as the risks of both operative and nonoperative management can be significant.

Details about the study

This retrospective cohort study using data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) focuses on outcomes of various management options among pregnant women with complicated appendicitis from January 2003 to September 2015. Complicated appendicitis refers to individuals with appendiceal perforation with peritonitis (a free perforation) or phlegmon/abscess (a walled-off perforation). Women included in the study were identified using ICD-9 codes for both pregnancy and complicated appendicitis; they were categorized into 3 groups: immediate operative management, successful nonoperative management, and failed nonoperative management (defined as surgical intervention >1 day after admission). The clinical and other outcomes of interest included maternal death, preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, amniotic infection, sepsis, pneumonia, antenatal hemorrhage, and premature rupture of membranes. Outcomes included are those that occurred during the hospitalization for appendicitis; outcomes that may have occurred between discharge from the appendicitis hospitalization to the delivery hospitalization are not included in this study.

A total of 8,087 pregnant women with complicated appendicitis were included in this study, of whom 954 (11.8%) had successful nonoperative management, 2,646 (32.7%) had failed nonoperative management, and 4,487 (55.5%) had immediate operative management. First, when comparing successful nonoperative management to immediate operative management, there were no differences in preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, or antenatal hemorrhage; however, successful nonoperative management was also associated with higher risks of maternal infectious complications, including risks of amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. When comparing failed nonoperative management (women who required surgical intervention during the index hospitalization) to immediate operative management, failed conservative management was associated with higher risks of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, amniotic infection, pneumonia, and sepsis. For every 1 day that surgery was delayed in the group of women who failed nonoperative management, the odds of preterm labor/delivery or pregnancy loss, antenatal hemorrhage, sepsis, amniotic infection, and pneumonia increased.

Study strengths and weaknesses

Database studies have inherent limitations that are overcome with strength in numbers. In this study, our understanding of outcomes associated with management of complicated appendicitis assumes that women were correctly identified as both being pregnant and having complicated appendicitis (as opposed to uncomplicated appendicitis but miscoded). Clinical data that may have led to selection of one management strategy over another, or specific clinical management decisions, are not possible to extract from the NIS. For instance, did nonoperative management systematically include percutaneous guided drainage if an abscess was noted, and appropriately targeted antibiotic therapy? If delayed operative intervention with IV antibiotics to allow for “cooling off” of the abdomen prior to surgery was planned, this strategy would have been included in the failed nonoperative management group, when in fact nonoperative management was never the plan. Whether gestational age (which is not known in this study), or any other clinical data contributed to the initially chosen management strategy is not known.

The treating clinicians, obstetricians and surgeons alike, would like to know the pregnancy outcome when considering the various management strategies for complicated appendicitis. However, this study only provides insight into the outcomes for the hospitalization for appendicitis. Whether or not women categorized as successful nonoperative management go on to require surgery or have preterm labor in the future, or whether women with successful immediate surgical management might be readmitted with complications, is not known. This is a significant limitation of the database, which does not allow for linking of individual hospitalizations, and rather can provide only a snapshot in time.

This study includes a fairly long timespan–2003 to 2015–during which the management of complicated appendicitis was actively evolving. Early in this time frame, nonoperative management outside of pregnancy was uncommon, and nonoperative management may have been even rarer and perhaps reserved for the most ill of pregnant women on presentation (for whom surgery may have been considered too risky without a short time with IV antibiotics to “cool off” the abdomen). As time progressed over the study span, nonoperative management was likely offered with greater frequency and among women with lesser degrees of illness. However, the year of presentation was not controlled for in this study.

Finally, given the differences noted in management strategy by race/ethnicity and type of hospital, it is not clear how this bias influences the findings from this study. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hypertension in pregnancy is a major challenge in current obstetric practice. Based on an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that from 2017 to 2019 the prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% to 15.9% of hospital deliveries.¹ During that same time period, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension, which includes preeclampsia, eclampsia, and gestational hypertension, increased from 10.8% to 13.0%.¹ The prevalence of chronic hypertension increased from 2.0% to 2.3%.¹ In 2017 and 2019, unspecified maternal hypertension was diagnosed in 0.5% and 0.6% of the sample, respectively.¹

Bruno and colleagues reported a 3-fold increase in the prevalence of HDPs from 1989 to 2020, with an acceleration in the rate of increase from 2010 to 2020.² The increase in prevalence of HDPs may be caused by an increase in the prevalence of advanced maternal age, obesity, and diabetes. Black patients are disproportionately impacted by both pregnancy-associated hypertension and chronic hypertension.¹ In 2019, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension was greater among Black patients (15.6%), than White (12.1%), Hispanic (10.6%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (7.7%).¹ Similarly, the prevalence of chronic hypertension was greater among Black patients (4.3%) than among White (2.0%), Hispanic (1.5%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (1.2%).¹ Racial/ethnic differences in HDPs may be influenced by poverty; structural racism; or lack of access to care, diet, and obesity.^3,4

HDPs are major contributors to maternal morbidity and mortality. The CDC reported that among maternal deaths occurring during the delivery hospitalization, 32% of the decedents had documented hypertension.¹ HDPs are associated with an approximately 2.5-fold increased risk of a severe morbidity, a composite measure that includes blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, sepsis, shock, and pulmonary edema.⁵ A history of HDPs is associated with an approximately 67% increase in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure.^6,7

What are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnancy?

All clinicians know that the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-receptor-blockers (ARBs) are contraindicated in pregnancy because they cause major congenital anomalies, with an odds ratio of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.34), compared with no exposure.⁸ In addition, ACE-Is and ARBs increase the risk of stillbirth, with an odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.21-2.53).⁸ No increase in congenital anomalies were detected for patients exposed to other antihypertensive medications.⁸ Prior to attempting conception, patients with chronic hypertension should discontinue ACE-Is and ARBs and initiate an alternative medication.

The most commonly used antihypertensive medications in pregnancy are labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa.⁹ Labetalol blocks the beta-1, beta-2, and alpha-1 adrenergic receptors.¹⁰ Nifedipine blocks calcium entry into cells through the L-type calcium channel.¹¹ Methyldopa is a central nervous system alpha-2 adrenergic agonist.¹² The dose range for these commonly used medications are labetalol 400 mg to 2,400 mg daily in divided doses every 8 to 12 hours, nifedipine extended-release 30 mg to 120 mg daily, and methyldopa 500 mg to 2 g daily in 2 to 4 divided doses. Some clinicians recommend prescribing divided doses of nifedipine extended release at doses ≥ 60 mg for patients who have bothersome adverse effects, hypotension following a single daily dose, or hypertension between single daily doses. The nifedipine extended release tablets should not be divided. If monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of labetalol does not achieve the blood pressure (BP) target, adding nifedipine as a second agent is an option.⁹ Similarly, if monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of nifedipine extended release does not achieve the BP target, adding labetalol as a second agent is an option.⁹

In a network meta-analysis of antihypertensive medications used in pregnancy, that included 61 trials and 6,923 participants, all the medications studied reduced the risk of developing severe hypertension by 30% to 70%.¹³ Sufficient data was available to also report that labetalol used to treat hypertension in pregnancy reduced the risk of developing proteinuria.¹³ Given similar efficacy among antihypertensive medications, patient comorbidities may influence the medication choice. For example, labetalol may not be the optimal medication for a patient with poorly controlled asthma due to its ability to cause bronchospasm.^14,15 Methyldopa may not be the optimal medication for a patient with depression.¹⁶ Based on the available data, labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnant patients.

Continue to: What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?...

What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?

When treating chronic hypertension in pregnant patients, a concern is that reducing maternal BP may decrease uteroplacental perfusion and result in fetal growth restriction. However, a recent trial reported that a BP treatment target < 140/90 mm Hg is associated with better outcomes for both mother and newborn than withholding antihypertension medications. In the trial, 2,408 women with chronic hypertension diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to an active treatment group with prescription of antihypertension medicines to achieve a BP target of < 140/90 mm Hg; or to a control group where no antihypertension or no additional antihypertension treatment was prescribed unless BP was ≥ 160 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 105 mm Hg diastolic.⁹ The hypertension medications prescribed to the patients in the active treatment group were labetalol (63.2%), nifedipine (33.4%), amlodipine (1.7%), methyldopa (0.5%), hydrochlorothiazide (0.3%), metoprolol (0.2%), and missing/unknown/other (0.7%).⁹

If a patient in the control group developed severe hypertension, they were started on an antihypertension medicine and the BP treatment target was < 140/90 mm Hg. Compared with the control regimen, active treatment resulted in a significant decrease in the development of preeclampsia (24.4% vs 31.1%; risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), severe hypertension (36.1% vs 44.3%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90), preterm birth < 37 weeks’ gestation (27.5% vs 31.4%; RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99), preterm birth < 35 weeks’ gestation (12.2% vs 16.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88), and low birth-weight (< 2,500 g) newborns (19.2% vs 23.1%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97).⁹ The percentage of small for gestational age birth weight below the 10th percentile was similar in the treatment and control groups, 11.2% and 10.4%, respectively (adjusted RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.31).⁹ The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent one primary-outcome event was 15.⁹ The investigators concluded that for pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, the optimal BP target is < 140/90 mm Hg.⁹

When does BP reach a postpartum peak?

In pregnant patients with hypertension, BP may decrease immediately after birth. Following birth, BP tends to increase, reaching a peak 3 to 6 days postpartum.^17,18 This pattern was observed in patients with and without preeclampsia in the index pregnancy. Among 136 patients without antepartum preeclampsia, the prevalence of a diastolic BP > 89 mm Hg was 5% and 15% on postpartum days 1 and 3, respectively.¹⁷ The postpartum rise in BP may be due to mobilization of water from the extravascular to the intravascular space and excretion of total body sodium that accumulated during pregnancy.¹⁹ In one study of 998 consecutive singleton cesarean births, 7.7% of the patients with no recorded elevated BP before delivery developed de novo hypertension postpartum.²⁰ Compared with patients without antepartum or new onset postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed postpartum hypertension had a higher body mass index, were more likely to be Black and to have a history of type 2 diabetes. Compared with patients without antepartum or postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed de novo postpartum hypertension, had significantly elevated soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and significantly decreased placental growth factor, a pattern seen with preeclampsia.²⁰ These results suggest that de novo postpartum hypertension may have molecular causes similar to preeclampsia.²⁰

Postpartum hypertension should be treated with a medication that is thought to be safe for breastfeeding patients, including labetalol, nifedipine, or enalapril.^21-23 The relative infant dose of labetalol, nifedipine, and enalapril is approximately 3.6%, ≤ 3.2%, and 1.1%, respectively.²⁴ If the relative infant dose of a medication is < 10% it is generally considered to be compatible with breastfeeding.²⁵

Many obstetricians have seldom prescribed enalapril, an ACE-I. The initial dose of enalapril is 5 mg or 10 mg daily. After initiation of treatment, the dose can be adjusted based on BP measurement. The maximal daily dose is 40 mg daily in one dose or two divided doses. Similar to other hypertension medicines, enalapril therapy may cause hypotension and dizziness. Enalapril should not be used by pregnant patients because it is associated with an increased risk of congenital anomalies and fetal demise.

Does a HDP increase the risk of developing chronic hypertension?

All obstetricians know that a patient with a history of a HDP is at an increased risk for developing chronic hypertension treated with a medication, but the magnitude of the risk is less well known. In a nationwide study in Denmark, the prevalence of chronic hypertension treated with medication 10 years after delivery among patients with a history of a HDP in their first pregnancy, was 14%, 21%, and 32%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the patient’s 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ The corresponding prevalence of chronic hypertension in patients without a history of a HDP was 4%, 6%, and 11%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ Maternal age is an important predictor of who will develop chronic hypertension within 10 years following a pregnancy with a HDP.

In modern obstetric practice, the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are prevalent and associated with increased maternal and newborn morbidity. Appropriate treatment of hypertension with labetalol, nifedipine, or methyldopa improves maternal and newborn health. Available evidence suggests that maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg during pregnancy for most patients is a practical goal with significant benefit. A significant public-health concern is that an increase in the prevalence of HDPs will eventually translate into an increase in chronic hypertension and the attendant complications of heart attack, heart failure, stroke, and renal insufficiency. Recognizing the increased prevalence of HDPs, ObGyns will need to alert patients to their long-term health risks and coordinate appropriate follow-up and treatment to optimize the future health of their patients. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hypertension in pregnancy is a major challenge in current obstetric practice. Based on an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that from 2017 to 2019 the prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% to 15.9% of hospital deliveries.¹ During that same time period, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension, which includes preeclampsia, eclampsia, and gestational hypertension, increased from 10.8% to 13.0%.¹ The prevalence of chronic hypertension increased from 2.0% to 2.3%.¹ In 2017 and 2019, unspecified maternal hypertension was diagnosed in 0.5% and 0.6% of the sample, respectively.¹

Bruno and colleagues reported a 3-fold increase in the prevalence of HDPs from 1989 to 2020, with an acceleration in the rate of increase from 2010 to 2020.² The increase in prevalence of HDPs may be caused by an increase in the prevalence of advanced maternal age, obesity, and diabetes. Black patients are disproportionately impacted by both pregnancy-associated hypertension and chronic hypertension.¹ In 2019, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension was greater among Black patients (15.6%), than White (12.1%), Hispanic (10.6%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (7.7%).¹ Similarly, the prevalence of chronic hypertension was greater among Black patients (4.3%) than among White (2.0%), Hispanic (1.5%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (1.2%).¹ Racial/ethnic differences in HDPs may be influenced by poverty; structural racism; or lack of access to care, diet, and obesity.^3,4

HDPs are major contributors to maternal morbidity and mortality. The CDC reported that among maternal deaths occurring during the delivery hospitalization, 32% of the decedents had documented hypertension.¹ HDPs are associated with an approximately 2.5-fold increased risk of a severe morbidity, a composite measure that includes blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, sepsis, shock, and pulmonary edema.⁵ A history of HDPs is associated with an approximately 67% increase in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure.^6,7

What are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnancy?

All clinicians know that the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-receptor-blockers (ARBs) are contraindicated in pregnancy because they cause major congenital anomalies, with an odds ratio of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.34), compared with no exposure.⁸ In addition, ACE-Is and ARBs increase the risk of stillbirth, with an odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.21-2.53).⁸ No increase in congenital anomalies were detected for patients exposed to other antihypertensive medications.⁸ Prior to attempting conception, patients with chronic hypertension should discontinue ACE-Is and ARBs and initiate an alternative medication.

The most commonly used antihypertensive medications in pregnancy are labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa.⁹ Labetalol blocks the beta-1, beta-2, and alpha-1 adrenergic receptors.¹⁰ Nifedipine blocks calcium entry into cells through the L-type calcium channel.¹¹ Methyldopa is a central nervous system alpha-2 adrenergic agonist.¹² The dose range for these commonly used medications are labetalol 400 mg to 2,400 mg daily in divided doses every 8 to 12 hours, nifedipine extended-release 30 mg to 120 mg daily, and methyldopa 500 mg to 2 g daily in 2 to 4 divided doses. Some clinicians recommend prescribing divided doses of nifedipine extended release at doses ≥ 60 mg for patients who have bothersome adverse effects, hypotension following a single daily dose, or hypertension between single daily doses. The nifedipine extended release tablets should not be divided. If monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of labetalol does not achieve the blood pressure (BP) target, adding nifedipine as a second agent is an option.⁹ Similarly, if monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of nifedipine extended release does not achieve the BP target, adding labetalol as a second agent is an option.⁹

In a network meta-analysis of antihypertensive medications used in pregnancy, that included 61 trials and 6,923 participants, all the medications studied reduced the risk of developing severe hypertension by 30% to 70%.¹³ Sufficient data was available to also report that labetalol used to treat hypertension in pregnancy reduced the risk of developing proteinuria.¹³ Given similar efficacy among antihypertensive medications, patient comorbidities may influence the medication choice. For example, labetalol may not be the optimal medication for a patient with poorly controlled asthma due to its ability to cause bronchospasm.^14,15 Methyldopa may not be the optimal medication for a patient with depression.¹⁶ Based on the available data, labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnant patients.

Continue to: What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?...

What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?

When treating chronic hypertension in pregnant patients, a concern is that reducing maternal BP may decrease uteroplacental perfusion and result in fetal growth restriction. However, a recent trial reported that a BP treatment target < 140/90 mm Hg is associated with better outcomes for both mother and newborn than withholding antihypertension medications. In the trial, 2,408 women with chronic hypertension diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to an active treatment group with prescription of antihypertension medicines to achieve a BP target of < 140/90 mm Hg; or to a control group where no antihypertension or no additional antihypertension treatment was prescribed unless BP was ≥ 160 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 105 mm Hg diastolic.⁹ The hypertension medications prescribed to the patients in the active treatment group were labetalol (63.2%), nifedipine (33.4%), amlodipine (1.7%), methyldopa (0.5%), hydrochlorothiazide (0.3%), metoprolol (0.2%), and missing/unknown/other (0.7%).⁹

If a patient in the control group developed severe hypertension, they were started on an antihypertension medicine and the BP treatment target was < 140/90 mm Hg. Compared with the control regimen, active treatment resulted in a significant decrease in the development of preeclampsia (24.4% vs 31.1%; risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), severe hypertension (36.1% vs 44.3%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90), preterm birth < 37 weeks’ gestation (27.5% vs 31.4%; RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99), preterm birth < 35 weeks’ gestation (12.2% vs 16.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88), and low birth-weight (< 2,500 g) newborns (19.2% vs 23.1%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97).⁹ The percentage of small for gestational age birth weight below the 10th percentile was similar in the treatment and control groups, 11.2% and 10.4%, respectively (adjusted RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.31).⁹ The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent one primary-outcome event was 15.⁹ The investigators concluded that for pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, the optimal BP target is < 140/90 mm Hg.⁹

When does BP reach a postpartum peak?

In pregnant patients with hypertension, BP may decrease immediately after birth. Following birth, BP tends to increase, reaching a peak 3 to 6 days postpartum.^17,18 This pattern was observed in patients with and without preeclampsia in the index pregnancy. Among 136 patients without antepartum preeclampsia, the prevalence of a diastolic BP > 89 mm Hg was 5% and 15% on postpartum days 1 and 3, respectively.¹⁷ The postpartum rise in BP may be due to mobilization of water from the extravascular to the intravascular space and excretion of total body sodium that accumulated during pregnancy.¹⁹ In one study of 998 consecutive singleton cesarean births, 7.7% of the patients with no recorded elevated BP before delivery developed de novo hypertension postpartum.²⁰ Compared with patients without antepartum or new onset postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed postpartum hypertension had a higher body mass index, were more likely to be Black and to have a history of type 2 diabetes. Compared with patients without antepartum or postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed de novo postpartum hypertension, had significantly elevated soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and significantly decreased placental growth factor, a pattern seen with preeclampsia.²⁰ These results suggest that de novo postpartum hypertension may have molecular causes similar to preeclampsia.²⁰

Postpartum hypertension should be treated with a medication that is thought to be safe for breastfeeding patients, including labetalol, nifedipine, or enalapril.^21-23 The relative infant dose of labetalol, nifedipine, and enalapril is approximately 3.6%, ≤ 3.2%, and 1.1%, respectively.²⁴ If the relative infant dose of a medication is < 10% it is generally considered to be compatible with breastfeeding.²⁵

Many obstetricians have seldom prescribed enalapril, an ACE-I. The initial dose of enalapril is 5 mg or 10 mg daily. After initiation of treatment, the dose can be adjusted based on BP measurement. The maximal daily dose is 40 mg daily in one dose or two divided doses. Similar to other hypertension medicines, enalapril therapy may cause hypotension and dizziness. Enalapril should not be used by pregnant patients because it is associated with an increased risk of congenital anomalies and fetal demise.

Does a HDP increase the risk of developing chronic hypertension?

All obstetricians know that a patient with a history of a HDP is at an increased risk for developing chronic hypertension treated with a medication, but the magnitude of the risk is less well known. In a nationwide study in Denmark, the prevalence of chronic hypertension treated with medication 10 years after delivery among patients with a history of a HDP in their first pregnancy, was 14%, 21%, and 32%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the patient’s 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ The corresponding prevalence of chronic hypertension in patients without a history of a HDP was 4%, 6%, and 11%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ Maternal age is an important predictor of who will develop chronic hypertension within 10 years following a pregnancy with a HDP.

In modern obstetric practice, the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are prevalent and associated with increased maternal and newborn morbidity. Appropriate treatment of hypertension with labetalol, nifedipine, or methyldopa improves maternal and newborn health. Available evidence suggests that maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg during pregnancy for most patients is a practical goal with significant benefit. A significant public-health concern is that an increase in the prevalence of HDPs will eventually translate into an increase in chronic hypertension and the attendant complications of heart attack, heart failure, stroke, and renal insufficiency. Recognizing the increased prevalence of HDPs, ObGyns will need to alert patients to their long-term health risks and coordinate appropriate follow-up and treatment to optimize the future health of their patients. ●

ILLUSTRATION BY KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hypertension in pregnancy is a major challenge in current obstetric practice. Based on an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that from 2017 to 2019 the prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% to 15.9% of hospital deliveries.¹ During that same time period, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension, which includes preeclampsia, eclampsia, and gestational hypertension, increased from 10.8% to 13.0%.¹ The prevalence of chronic hypertension increased from 2.0% to 2.3%.¹ In 2017 and 2019, unspecified maternal hypertension was diagnosed in 0.5% and 0.6% of the sample, respectively.¹

Bruno and colleagues reported a 3-fold increase in the prevalence of HDPs from 1989 to 2020, with an acceleration in the rate of increase from 2010 to 2020.² The increase in prevalence of HDPs may be caused by an increase in the prevalence of advanced maternal age, obesity, and diabetes. Black patients are disproportionately impacted by both pregnancy-associated hypertension and chronic hypertension.¹ In 2019, the prevalence of pregnancy-associated hypertension was greater among Black patients (15.6%), than White (12.1%), Hispanic (10.6%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (7.7%).¹ Similarly, the prevalence of chronic hypertension was greater among Black patients (4.3%) than among White (2.0%), Hispanic (1.5%), or Asian or Pacific Islander patients (1.2%).¹ Racial/ethnic differences in HDPs may be influenced by poverty; structural racism; or lack of access to care, diet, and obesity.^3,4

HDPs are major contributors to maternal morbidity and mortality. The CDC reported that among maternal deaths occurring during the delivery hospitalization, 32% of the decedents had documented hypertension.¹ HDPs are associated with an approximately 2.5-fold increased risk of a severe morbidity, a composite measure that includes blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, sepsis, shock, and pulmonary edema.⁵ A history of HDPs is associated with an approximately 67% increase in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure.^6,7

What are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnancy?

All clinicians know that the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-receptor-blockers (ARBs) are contraindicated in pregnancy because they cause major congenital anomalies, with an odds ratio of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.34), compared with no exposure.⁸ In addition, ACE-Is and ARBs increase the risk of stillbirth, with an odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.21-2.53).⁸ No increase in congenital anomalies were detected for patients exposed to other antihypertensive medications.⁸ Prior to attempting conception, patients with chronic hypertension should discontinue ACE-Is and ARBs and initiate an alternative medication.

The most commonly used antihypertensive medications in pregnancy are labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa.⁹ Labetalol blocks the beta-1, beta-2, and alpha-1 adrenergic receptors.¹⁰ Nifedipine blocks calcium entry into cells through the L-type calcium channel.¹¹ Methyldopa is a central nervous system alpha-2 adrenergic agonist.¹² The dose range for these commonly used medications are labetalol 400 mg to 2,400 mg daily in divided doses every 8 to 12 hours, nifedipine extended-release 30 mg to 120 mg daily, and methyldopa 500 mg to 2 g daily in 2 to 4 divided doses. Some clinicians recommend prescribing divided doses of nifedipine extended release at doses ≥ 60 mg for patients who have bothersome adverse effects, hypotension following a single daily dose, or hypertension between single daily doses. The nifedipine extended release tablets should not be divided. If monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of labetalol does not achieve the blood pressure (BP) target, adding nifedipine as a second agent is an option.⁹ Similarly, if monotherapy with the maximal daily dose of nifedipine extended release does not achieve the BP target, adding labetalol as a second agent is an option.⁹

In a network meta-analysis of antihypertensive medications used in pregnancy, that included 61 trials and 6,923 participants, all the medications studied reduced the risk of developing severe hypertension by 30% to 70%.¹³ Sufficient data was available to also report that labetalol used to treat hypertension in pregnancy reduced the risk of developing proteinuria.¹³ Given similar efficacy among antihypertensive medications, patient comorbidities may influence the medication choice. For example, labetalol may not be the optimal medication for a patient with poorly controlled asthma due to its ability to cause bronchospasm.^14,15 Methyldopa may not be the optimal medication for a patient with depression.¹⁶ Based on the available data, labetalol, nifedipine, and methyldopa are the best antihypertensive medications for pregnant patients.

Continue to: What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?...

What is an optimal BP target when treating chronic hypertension in pregnancy?

When treating chronic hypertension in pregnant patients, a concern is that reducing maternal BP may decrease uteroplacental perfusion and result in fetal growth restriction. However, a recent trial reported that a BP treatment target < 140/90 mm Hg is associated with better outcomes for both mother and newborn than withholding antihypertension medications. In the trial, 2,408 women with chronic hypertension diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to an active treatment group with prescription of antihypertension medicines to achieve a BP target of < 140/90 mm Hg; or to a control group where no antihypertension or no additional antihypertension treatment was prescribed unless BP was ≥ 160 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 105 mm Hg diastolic.⁹ The hypertension medications prescribed to the patients in the active treatment group were labetalol (63.2%), nifedipine (33.4%), amlodipine (1.7%), methyldopa (0.5%), hydrochlorothiazide (0.3%), metoprolol (0.2%), and missing/unknown/other (0.7%).⁹

If a patient in the control group developed severe hypertension, they were started on an antihypertension medicine and the BP treatment target was < 140/90 mm Hg. Compared with the control regimen, active treatment resulted in a significant decrease in the development of preeclampsia (24.4% vs 31.1%; risk ratio [RR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), severe hypertension (36.1% vs 44.3%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90), preterm birth < 37 weeks’ gestation (27.5% vs 31.4%; RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99), preterm birth < 35 weeks’ gestation (12.2% vs 16.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.88), and low birth-weight (< 2,500 g) newborns (19.2% vs 23.1%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97).⁹ The percentage of small for gestational age birth weight below the 10th percentile was similar in the treatment and control groups, 11.2% and 10.4%, respectively (adjusted RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.31).⁹ The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent one primary-outcome event was 15.⁹ The investigators concluded that for pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, the optimal BP target is < 140/90 mm Hg.⁹

When does BP reach a postpartum peak?

In pregnant patients with hypertension, BP may decrease immediately after birth. Following birth, BP tends to increase, reaching a peak 3 to 6 days postpartum.^17,18 This pattern was observed in patients with and without preeclampsia in the index pregnancy. Among 136 patients without antepartum preeclampsia, the prevalence of a diastolic BP > 89 mm Hg was 5% and 15% on postpartum days 1 and 3, respectively.¹⁷ The postpartum rise in BP may be due to mobilization of water from the extravascular to the intravascular space and excretion of total body sodium that accumulated during pregnancy.¹⁹ In one study of 998 consecutive singleton cesarean births, 7.7% of the patients with no recorded elevated BP before delivery developed de novo hypertension postpartum.²⁰ Compared with patients without antepartum or new onset postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed postpartum hypertension had a higher body mass index, were more likely to be Black and to have a history of type 2 diabetes. Compared with patients without antepartum or postpartum hypertension, the patients who developed de novo postpartum hypertension, had significantly elevated soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and significantly decreased placental growth factor, a pattern seen with preeclampsia.²⁰ These results suggest that de novo postpartum hypertension may have molecular causes similar to preeclampsia.²⁰

Postpartum hypertension should be treated with a medication that is thought to be safe for breastfeeding patients, including labetalol, nifedipine, or enalapril.^21-23 The relative infant dose of labetalol, nifedipine, and enalapril is approximately 3.6%, ≤ 3.2%, and 1.1%, respectively.²⁴ If the relative infant dose of a medication is < 10% it is generally considered to be compatible with breastfeeding.²⁵

Many obstetricians have seldom prescribed enalapril, an ACE-I. The initial dose of enalapril is 5 mg or 10 mg daily. After initiation of treatment, the dose can be adjusted based on BP measurement. The maximal daily dose is 40 mg daily in one dose or two divided doses. Similar to other hypertension medicines, enalapril therapy may cause hypotension and dizziness. Enalapril should not be used by pregnant patients because it is associated with an increased risk of congenital anomalies and fetal demise.

Does a HDP increase the risk of developing chronic hypertension?

All obstetricians know that a patient with a history of a HDP is at an increased risk for developing chronic hypertension treated with a medication, but the magnitude of the risk is less well known. In a nationwide study in Denmark, the prevalence of chronic hypertension treated with medication 10 years after delivery among patients with a history of a HDP in their first pregnancy, was 14%, 21%, and 32%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the patient’s 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ The corresponding prevalence of chronic hypertension in patients without a history of a HDP was 4%, 6%, and 11%, if the first pregnancy occurred in the 20s, 30s, or 40s, respectively.²⁶ Maternal age is an important predictor of who will develop chronic hypertension within 10 years following a pregnancy with a HDP.

In modern obstetric practice, the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are prevalent and associated with increased maternal and newborn morbidity. Appropriate treatment of hypertension with labetalol, nifedipine, or methyldopa improves maternal and newborn health. Available evidence suggests that maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg during pregnancy for most patients is a practical goal with significant benefit. A significant public-health concern is that an increase in the prevalence of HDPs will eventually translate into an increase in chronic hypertension and the attendant complications of heart attack, heart failure, stroke, and renal insufficiency. Recognizing the increased prevalence of HDPs, ObGyns will need to alert patients to their long-term health risks and coordinate appropriate follow-up and treatment to optimize the future health of their patients. ●

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

An anesthesiologist is under arrest and facing criminal charges related to alleged tampering with patient IV bags at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.

In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case. 

Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.

According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.

In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.

The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.

Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.

The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure. 

“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”

Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.

On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”

“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.

Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.

“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.

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

An anesthesiologist is under arrest and facing criminal charges related to alleged tampering with patient IV bags at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.

In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case. 

Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.

According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.

In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.

The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.

Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.

The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure. 

“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”

Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.

On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”

“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.

Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.

“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.

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

An anesthesiologist is under arrest and facing criminal charges related to alleged tampering with patient IV bags at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.

In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case. 

Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.

According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.

In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.

The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.

Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.

The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure. 

“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”

Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.

On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”

“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.

Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.

“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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