MDedge ObGyn

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

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

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

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

In 2020, it was hard to imagine that the situation could get worse for doctors.

But 2021 presented a new set of challenges. As quarantines lifted and physicians tried to get back to work, they were forced to deal with reduced staff, continuing COVID stress, and pandemic-related anxieties about family and loved ones.

olm26250/Thinkstock

Medscape’s National Burnout and Depression Report 2022 asked more than 13,000 physicians from 29 specialties to share details about their lives and struggles with burnout and depression in 2021. The results paint a picture of physicians trying to fulfill their mission to care for patients, but struggling to maintain their own well-being amid a global pandemic.
 

Burnout bump

In 2021’s report, 42% of physicians said they were burned out. In 2022, that number increased to 47%. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, increasing from 43% to 60%. Critical care (56%), ob.gyn. (53%), and infectious disease and family medicine (both at 51%) rounded out the top five specialties with doctors experiencing burnout in 2021.

Burnout has typically been a greater problem for women than men physicians, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. “There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” says Carol A. Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. And indeed, 56% of women and 41% of men reported burnout in the 2022 survey.

The causes, however, weren’t especially pandemic related – or at least not directly. As in previous surveys, the major contributing factor to burnout was too much paperwork (60%), such as charting and other bureaucratic tasks. Treating COVID-19 patients was cited as the major source of stress by 10% of respondents. About 34% said too many hours at work was the biggest contributing factor to burnout.
 

The nature of the beast

What is burnout like for these doctors? One described the conditions that lead to burnout like this: “I barely spend enough time with most patients, just running from one to the next; and then after work, I spend hours documenting, charting, dealing with reports. I feel like an overpaid clerk.” Another said: “Where’s the relationships with patients that used to make this worthwhile?” Others fingered staffing shortages at work or an overwhelming home life: “Staff calls in sick; we’re all running around trying to find things and get things done. It never ends.”

Of those who do experience burnout, the problem reaches beyond the workplace, with 54% saying that their burnout has a strong/severe impact on life and 68% reporting that burnout affects their relationships. One respondent said: “I’m always tired; I have trouble concentrating, no time for the children, more arguments with my hubby.” Another put it this way: “Home is just as busy and chaotic as work. I can never relax.”

It doesn’t help matters that physicians are likely to think they’re the only professionals experiencing job burnout. For example, only 36% of respondents believe teachers experience comparable burnout, yet more than 41% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of starting – often because of burnout.

When it comes to methods for coping with burnout, exercise is the clear favorite, with 63% of respondents saying exercise helps maintain their mental health. About 41% talk with family members or close friends. However, less healthy coping mechanisms were cited as well, such as isolating themselves from others (45%), sleeping (41%), and eating junk food (35%) or drinking alcohol (24%).

When it comes to trying to alleviate burnout, 29% have tried meditation or similar stress-reduction techniques, while others have reduced their work hours (29%) or changed their work settings (19%).
 

‘Now I feel like there’s no hope’

About a fifth of physicians (21%) said they suffered from clinical depression, and 64% reported feeling “blue, down, or sad.” One physician characterized their depression this way: “I used to think my life would be great. Now I feel like there’s no hope, this will never get better, I’ll never be happy.”

Of doctors reporting depression, 53% said their illness did not affect their interactions with patients, while 34% said depression caused them to be more easily exasperated by patients.

When asked about seeking help for depression, about half (49%) said they believed they could deal with emotional stress on their own. Unfortunately, fear of medical boards finding out keeps 43% of physicians from reaching out for help, according to the survey.

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

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

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

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

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

Early in December 2021 a jury awarded a couple $10 million in a case involving a hysterectomy that went badly wrong, according to a story in the New York Post, among other news sites.

In October 2018, Michele Nugent, 41, of New York, underwent the procedure at Richmond University Medical Center. After giving birth to four children via cesarean delivery, she had developed scarring and was suffering from excessive and painful uterine bleeding.

A few days after her hysterectomy, however, Ms. Nugent experienced what she described as the worst pain of her life, along with nausea, vomiting, and urinary leakage. She was brought to the hospital emergency department, where she was reportedly told by staff there that her symptoms were normal complications of her surgery and that the treating gynecologist, Eli Serur, MD, would soon be in touch.

Despite these reassurances, Ms. Nugent’s postsurgical issues continued to worsen over the next 10 days. Among other things, she lost almost complete control of her bladder, which required her to wear adult diapers. Still, her doctor’s office told her to put off visiting until her next scheduled appointment.

At that meeting, which took place 13 days after Ms. Nugent’s surgery, Dr. Serur diagnosed a urinary tract infection and placed her on antibiotics. He also encouraged her to return to work the following week.

Ms. Nugent’s problems persisted, however. At an office meeting that included 20 men, she suddenly lost complete control of her bladder, despite going regularly to the bathroom and wearing adult diapers. “Out of nowhere,” she testified at trial, “I urinated all over myself and had to leave.” The experience left her humiliated and embarrassed.

Several weeks later, Ms. Nugent consulted with a urologist, who soon repaired the cause of her urinary problems – a fistula between her vagina and bladder.

Though successful, the procedure still left Ms. Nugent with, what are for now at least, intractable symptoms. At night, she’s forced to make multiple trips to the bathroom, and sex with her husband has become all but impossible because of the pain it elicits.

In reaching its verdict, the jury of four women and two men faulted Dr. Serur for not only performing a faulty surgery but for failing to identify and correct his mistake. In so doing, it concluded, he had departed “from good and accepted medical practice.”

Jurors divided the $10 million judgment against him into two parts: $6.5 million for Ms. Nugent’s past and future suffering, and $3.5 million to her husband for his past and future loss of consortium – that is, his loss of intimacy with his wife.

As for the medical center, the Nugents agreed to dismiss it from the case prior to trial.
 

Physician accused of gross negligence finally surrenders his license

A California doctor under investigation multiple times during the past 2 decades has surrendered his medical license, as a story reported by Valley Public Radio indicates.

Since 1999, the Medical Board of California has opened three investigations against Bakersfield ob.gyn. Arthur Park, MD, each involving accusations of gross negligence “following the deaths of mothers and/or their babies during childbirth.” In 2000, and again in 2020, the board voted that Dr. Park should lose his license but then suspended its decision, which enabled Dr. Park to continue practicing under probation and on condition that he complete remedial education.

Early in 2021, however, the board filed yet another accusation against him, this one involving the 2019 death of Demi Dominguez and her newborn baby. According to the accusation, Ms. Dominguez died of preeclampsia because Dr. Park and a colleague failed to treat her high blood pressure prior to delivery. While doctors attempted to resuscitate her, Ms. Dominguez’s son was delivered by emergency cesarean but died only a few hours later. The board said that Dr. Park was “grossly negligent in his care and treatment” and that his actions constituted “an extreme departure from the applicable standard of care.”

Early in December 2021, even before the board and attorney general’s office had completed their investigations, Dr. Park agreed to surrender his medical license.

Patient advocates were pleased by the doctor’s decision but also disappointed that he’d no longer be compelled to stand before a judge, as he had been scheduled to do in connection with the Dominguez case.

A review of public records by Valley Public Radio indicates that – between the various board accusations against him and an additional nine lawsuits alleging malpractice and other issues – at least two mothers and five children have died while under Dr. Park’s care. Others whose delivery he oversaw claim their children were permanently injured during childbirth.

Although Dr. Park will be eligible to reapply for his license after 2 years, a representative of his medical office said Dr. Park had decided to retire from practicing medicine.
 

Delayed cancer diagnosis prompts med-mal suit

An Illinois woman who claims her doctor and his staff failed to follow up on her abnormal Pap smear has filed a malpractice suit against them and their medical group, reports a story in the Madison-St. Clair Record.

In early 2019, Lisa Albright visited the medical group after she had experienced pain during intercourse. A family nurse practitioner at the practice performed a Pap smear, and Ms. Albright was instructed to wait a few days and check her patient portal for the results. In her suit, Ms. Albright claims those results were abnormal. Despite this, neither the nurse practitioner nor anyone else at the practice scheduled a follow-up test or other diagnostic assessment.

Approximately 5 months later, Ms. Albright consulted a new physician, whose follow-up testing indicated that Ms. Albright had a cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

Ms. Albright’s suit alleges that the diagnostic delay has, among other things, caused her to undergo multiple surgical procedures and treatments, face a shorter life expectancy, and endure a loss in the quality of her life.

At press time, Ms. Albright and her legal representative have not yet determined the amount they will ask for – it will be set after the severity and permanency of Ms. Albright’s injuries have been more thoroughly investigated. But it’s expected that they will seek damages, along with all legal and court expenses.

The defendants haven’t responded to the plaintiff’s suit.

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

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B. For a 28-year-old woman, herself untested, with a known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a first-degree relative (mother/ father, sister/brother, daughter/son), screening annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone is recommended until age 30, followed by screening annual MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond. If MRI is not an option, ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography should be considered.

Most medical societies in the United States recommend mammography screening beginning at age 40 if a woman is at average risk. If a woman is determined to be at high risk, breast cancer screening may be recommended to begin by age 30. Breast cancer risk assessment, with a risk model based largely on family history, should begin by age 30 for all women.

The American College of Radiology (ACR),¹ National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),^2,3 and American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend annual MRI screening for the following high-risk subgroups of women:

• Women with known disease-causing BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or other disease-causing mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives. (Age to begin screening MRI and screening mammography/tomosynthesis varies by mutation).^1,3 Women with known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives, should begin annual screening with MRI only between ages 25-29, adding annual digital mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy). Note: There is emerging evidence that the benefit of mammography is relatively small in pathogenic BRCA1 carriers prior to the age of 40; therefore, the ACR suggests BRCA1 mutation carriers may consider delaying mammography until age 40 only if they receive contrast-enhanced MRI annually starting at age 25.¹ Annual mammography is of benefit beginning at age 30 in those with BRCA2 or other disease-causing mutations.
  Age to begin annual MRI screening and mammography/tomosynthesis in women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome [TP53]; Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome or Cowden syndrome [PTEN]; hereditary diffuse gastric cancer [CDH1]; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome [STK11]; neurofibromatosis type 1 [NF1]; PALB2; ATM; CHEK2; or BARD1) ranges from 20-40 years depending on the mutation and family history.³ (See https://densebreast-info.org/providers-faqs /what-is-the-screening-management-for -various-other-mutation-carriers/.)

• Women who received chest/mantle radiation therapy by age 30 (such as for Hodgkin disease) and at least 8 years prior. Women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^1,2,4,5 with risk similar in magnitude to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers, and are recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.
• Women with a calculated lifetime risk of breast cancer of ≥20% are recommended to begin annual screening MRI by age 25-30.^1,2,5 Any of the models that include detailed family history such as the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS, which now includes breast density as a risk factor); BRCAPRO; BOADICEA; Claus; or Penn II; but not the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for the purposes of screening MRI guidelines. (See https://densebreast -info.org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/ for a summary table with live links.)
• Women with a personal history of breast cancer and dense breasts or diagnosis by age 50, regardless of breast density. A personal history of breast cancer is not included in risk models, but all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 50 and treated with breast-conserving therapy have a ≥20% lifetime risk for a new breast cancer.^1,2 Annual MRI may be considered in addition to annual mammography or tomosynthesis in women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed after age 50 and without dense breasts, and/or a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or prior atypia (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), or atypical papilloma).^1,2

Supplemental MRI screening should continue until age 75, after which management should be considered on an individual basis. If MRI screening is not an option, ultrasound or contrast-enhanced mammography (where available) should be considered as an alternative.^6-8 ●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B. For a 28-year-old woman, herself untested, with a known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a first-degree relative (mother/ father, sister/brother, daughter/son), screening annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone is recommended until age 30, followed by screening annual MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond. If MRI is not an option, ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography should be considered.

Most medical societies in the United States recommend mammography screening beginning at age 40 if a woman is at average risk. If a woman is determined to be at high risk, breast cancer screening may be recommended to begin by age 30. Breast cancer risk assessment, with a risk model based largely on family history, should begin by age 30 for all women.

The American College of Radiology (ACR),¹ National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),^2,3 and American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend annual MRI screening for the following high-risk subgroups of women:

• Women with known disease-causing BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or other disease-causing mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives. (Age to begin screening MRI and screening mammography/tomosynthesis varies by mutation).^1,3 Women with known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives, should begin annual screening with MRI only between ages 25-29, adding annual digital mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy). Note: There is emerging evidence that the benefit of mammography is relatively small in pathogenic BRCA1 carriers prior to the age of 40; therefore, the ACR suggests BRCA1 mutation carriers may consider delaying mammography until age 40 only if they receive contrast-enhanced MRI annually starting at age 25.¹ Annual mammography is of benefit beginning at age 30 in those with BRCA2 or other disease-causing mutations.
  Age to begin annual MRI screening and mammography/tomosynthesis in women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome [TP53]; Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome or Cowden syndrome [PTEN]; hereditary diffuse gastric cancer [CDH1]; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome [STK11]; neurofibromatosis type 1 [NF1]; PALB2; ATM; CHEK2; or BARD1) ranges from 20-40 years depending on the mutation and family history.³ (See https://densebreast-info.org/providers-faqs /what-is-the-screening-management-for -various-other-mutation-carriers/.)

• Women who received chest/mantle radiation therapy by age 30 (such as for Hodgkin disease) and at least 8 years prior. Women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^1,2,4,5 with risk similar in magnitude to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers, and are recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.
• Women with a calculated lifetime risk of breast cancer of ≥20% are recommended to begin annual screening MRI by age 25-30.^1,2,5 Any of the models that include detailed family history such as the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS, which now includes breast density as a risk factor); BRCAPRO; BOADICEA; Claus; or Penn II; but not the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for the purposes of screening MRI guidelines. (See https://densebreast -info.org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/ for a summary table with live links.)
• Women with a personal history of breast cancer and dense breasts or diagnosis by age 50, regardless of breast density. A personal history of breast cancer is not included in risk models, but all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 50 and treated with breast-conserving therapy have a ≥20% lifetime risk for a new breast cancer.^1,2 Annual MRI may be considered in addition to annual mammography or tomosynthesis in women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed after age 50 and without dense breasts, and/or a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or prior atypia (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), or atypical papilloma).^1,2

Supplemental MRI screening should continue until age 75, after which management should be considered on an individual basis. If MRI screening is not an option, ultrasound or contrast-enhanced mammography (where available) should be considered as an alternative.^6-8 ●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B. For a 28-year-old woman, herself untested, with a known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a first-degree relative (mother/ father, sister/brother, daughter/son), screening annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone is recommended until age 30, followed by screening annual MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond. If MRI is not an option, ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography should be considered.

Most medical societies in the United States recommend mammography screening beginning at age 40 if a woman is at average risk. If a woman is determined to be at high risk, breast cancer screening may be recommended to begin by age 30. Breast cancer risk assessment, with a risk model based largely on family history, should begin by age 30 for all women.

The American College of Radiology (ACR),¹ National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),^2,3 and American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend annual MRI screening for the following high-risk subgroups of women:

• Women with known disease-causing BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or other disease-causing mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives. (Age to begin screening MRI and screening mammography/tomosynthesis varies by mutation).^1,3 Women with known pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, or their untested first-degree relatives, should begin annual screening with MRI only between ages 25-29, adding annual digital mammography/tomosynthesis at age 30 and beyond (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy). Note: There is emerging evidence that the benefit of mammography is relatively small in pathogenic BRCA1 carriers prior to the age of 40; therefore, the ACR suggests BRCA1 mutation carriers may consider delaying mammography until age 40 only if they receive contrast-enhanced MRI annually starting at age 25.¹ Annual mammography is of benefit beginning at age 30 in those with BRCA2 or other disease-causing mutations.
  Age to begin annual MRI screening and mammography/tomosynthesis in women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome [TP53]; Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome or Cowden syndrome [PTEN]; hereditary diffuse gastric cancer [CDH1]; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome [STK11]; neurofibromatosis type 1 [NF1]; PALB2; ATM; CHEK2; or BARD1) ranges from 20-40 years depending on the mutation and family history.³ (See https://densebreast-info.org/providers-faqs /what-is-the-screening-management-for -various-other-mutation-carriers/.)

• Women who received chest/mantle radiation therapy by age 30 (such as for Hodgkin disease) and at least 8 years prior. Women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^1,2,4,5 with risk similar in magnitude to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers, and are recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.
• Women with a calculated lifetime risk of breast cancer of ≥20% are recommended to begin annual screening MRI by age 25-30.^1,2,5 Any of the models that include detailed family history such as the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS, which now includes breast density as a risk factor); BRCAPRO; BOADICEA; Claus; or Penn II; but not the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for the purposes of screening MRI guidelines. (See https://densebreast -info.org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/ for a summary table with live links.)
• Women with a personal history of breast cancer and dense breasts or diagnosis by age 50, regardless of breast density. A personal history of breast cancer is not included in risk models, but all women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 50 and treated with breast-conserving therapy have a ≥20% lifetime risk for a new breast cancer.^1,2 Annual MRI may be considered in addition to annual mammography or tomosynthesis in women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed after age 50 and without dense breasts, and/or a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or prior atypia (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), or atypical papilloma).^1,2

Supplemental MRI screening should continue until age 75, after which management should be considered on an individual basis. If MRI screening is not an option, ultrasound or contrast-enhanced mammography (where available) should be considered as an alternative.^6-8 ●