MDedge ObGyn

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

New evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is tied to elevated levels of the fetal placenta–derived hormone GDF15, and targeting the hormone prophylactically may reduce this common gestational condition.

This protein acts on the brainstem to cause emesis, and, significantly, a mother’s prior exposure to it determines the degree of NVP severity she will experience, according to international researchers including Marlena Fejzo, PhD, a clinical assistant professor of population and public Health at Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“GDF15 is at the mechanistic heart of NVP and HG [hyperemesis gravidarum],” Dr. Fejzo and colleagues wrote in Nature, pointing to the need for preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Courtesy HER Foundation

“My previous research showed an association between variation in the GDF15 gene and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and HG, and this study takes it one step further by elucidating the mechanism. It confirms that the nausea and vomiting (N/V) hormone GDF15 is a major cause of NVP and HG,” Dr. Fejzo said.

The etiology of NVP remains poorly understood although it affects up to 80% of pregnancies. In the US, its severe form, HG, is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second-leading reason for pregnancy hospitalization overall.

The immunoassay-based study showed that the majority of GDF15 in maternal blood during pregnancy comes from the fetal part of the placenta, and confirms previous studies reporting higher levels in pregnancies with more severe NVP, said Dr. Fejzo, who is who is a board member of the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

“However, what was really fascinating and surprising is that prior to pregnancy the women who have more severe NVP symptoms actually have lower levels of the hormone.”

Although the gene variant linked to HG was previously associated with higher circulating levels in maternal blood, counterintuitively, this new research showed that women with abnormally high levels prior to pregnancy have either no or very little NVP, said Dr. Fejzo. “That suggests that in humans higher levels may lead to a desensitization to the high levels of the hormone in pregnancy. Then we also proved that desensitization can occur in a mouse model.” 

According to Erin Higgins, MD, a clinical assistant professor of obgyn and reproductive biology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, “This is an exciting finding that may help us to better target treatment of N/V in pregnancy. Factors for NVP have been identified, but to my knowledge there has not been a clear etiology.”

Courtesy Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Higgins cautioned, however, that the GDF15 gene seems important in normal placentation, “so it’s not as simple as blocking the gene or its receptor.” But since preconception exposure to GDF15 might decrease nausea and vomiting once a woman is pregnant, prophylactic treatment may be possible, and metformin has been suggested as a possibility, she said.

The study findings emerged from immunoassays on maternal blood samples collected at about 15 weeks (first trimester and early second trimester), from women with NVP (n = 168) or seen at a hospital for HG (n = 57). Results were compared with those from controls having similar characteristics but no significant symptoms.

Interestingly, GDF15 is also associated with cachexia, a condition similar to HG and characterized by loss of appetite and weight loss, Dr. Fejzo noted. “The hormone can be produced by malignant tumors at levels similar to those seen in pregnancy, and symptoms can be reduced by blocking GDF15 or its receptor, GFRAL. Clinical trials are already underway in cancer patients to test this.”

She is seeking funding to test the impact of increasing GDF15 levels prior to pregnancy in patients who previously experienced HG. “I am confident that desensitizing patients by increasing GDF15 prior to pregnancy and by lowering GDF15 levels during pregnancy will work. But we need to make sure we do safety studies and get the dosing and duration right, and that will take some time.”

Desensitization will need testing first in HG, where the risk for adverse maternal and fetal outcomes is high, so the benefit will outweigh any possible risk of testing medication in pregnancy, she continued. “It will take some time before we get to patients with normal NVP, but I do believe eventually the new findings will result in game-changing therapeutics for the condition.”

Dr. Higgins added, “Even if this isn’t the golden ticket, researchers and clinicians are working toward improvements in the treatment of NVP. We’ve already come a long way in recent years with the development of treatment algorithms and the advent of doxylamine/pyridoxine.”

This study was supported primarily by the Medical Research Council UK and National Institute for Health and Care Research UK, with additional support from various research funding organizations, including Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Dr. Fejzo is a paid consultant for Materna Biosciences and NGM Biopharmaceuticals, and a board member and science adviser for the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation.

Numerous study co-authors disclosed financial relationships with private-sector companies, including employment and patent ownership.

Dr. Higgins disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments but is an instructor for Organon.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using olaparib alone or in combination with durvalumab as a chemotherapy-free maintenance treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODOLOGY:

• First-line standard therapy for advanced TNBC generally includes taxane- or platinum-based chemotherapy which poses challenging toxicities. Exploring chemotherapy-free maintenance strategies may provide adequate disease control and improve patient quality of life.
• The researchers evaluated 45 patients, at five sites in the Republic of Korea, the United States, and Singapore, with TNBC who had ongoing stable disease or complete/partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
• The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olaparib 300 mg twice daily with or without durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks.
• The authors compared PFS with a historical control of continued platinum-based therapy. An improvement to 4 months with maintenance therapy was considered clinically significant.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a follow-up of 9.8 months, patients who received olaparib alone demonstrated median PFS of 4.0 months, and those who received the combination therapy had median PFS of 6.1 months.
• Clinical benefit rates, defined as stable disease for at least 24 weeks or complete/partial response, were reported in 44% of the monotherapy group and 36% of the combination therapy group.
• Sustained clinical benefit was evident irrespective of germline BRCA mutation or programmed death-ligand 1 status, although it tended to be associated with complete or partial response to prior platinum.
• Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in nine patients (39%) in the olaparib arm and eight patients (36%) in the combination arm. No treatment-related deaths or new safety signals were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“Maintenance regimens are rarely used in [triple-negative breast cancer] but offer the possibility of more tolerable long-term treatment avoiding some of the chemotherapy-related side effects of more aggressive regimens, as is standard in the first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced breast cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tira J. Tan from Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, was published online on January 18, 2024, in Clinical Cancer Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were the small sample size and lack of a standard control arm. Most patients (76%) were Asian, limiting generalizability. The trial was not designed to compare olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP supported this study. Several authors reported financial support from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using olaparib alone or in combination with durvalumab as a chemotherapy-free maintenance treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODOLOGY:

• First-line standard therapy for advanced TNBC generally includes taxane- or platinum-based chemotherapy which poses challenging toxicities. Exploring chemotherapy-free maintenance strategies may provide adequate disease control and improve patient quality of life.
• The researchers evaluated 45 patients, at five sites in the Republic of Korea, the United States, and Singapore, with TNBC who had ongoing stable disease or complete/partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
• The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olaparib 300 mg twice daily with or without durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks.
• The authors compared PFS with a historical control of continued platinum-based therapy. An improvement to 4 months with maintenance therapy was considered clinically significant.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a follow-up of 9.8 months, patients who received olaparib alone demonstrated median PFS of 4.0 months, and those who received the combination therapy had median PFS of 6.1 months.
• Clinical benefit rates, defined as stable disease for at least 24 weeks or complete/partial response, were reported in 44% of the monotherapy group and 36% of the combination therapy group.
• Sustained clinical benefit was evident irrespective of germline BRCA mutation or programmed death-ligand 1 status, although it tended to be associated with complete or partial response to prior platinum.
• Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in nine patients (39%) in the olaparib arm and eight patients (36%) in the combination arm. No treatment-related deaths or new safety signals were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“Maintenance regimens are rarely used in [triple-negative breast cancer] but offer the possibility of more tolerable long-term treatment avoiding some of the chemotherapy-related side effects of more aggressive regimens, as is standard in the first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced breast cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tira J. Tan from Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, was published online on January 18, 2024, in Clinical Cancer Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were the small sample size and lack of a standard control arm. Most patients (76%) were Asian, limiting generalizability. The trial was not designed to compare olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP supported this study. Several authors reported financial support from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using olaparib alone or in combination with durvalumab as a chemotherapy-free maintenance treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODOLOGY:

• First-line standard therapy for advanced TNBC generally includes taxane- or platinum-based chemotherapy which poses challenging toxicities. Exploring chemotherapy-free maintenance strategies may provide adequate disease control and improve patient quality of life.
• The researchers evaluated 45 patients, at five sites in the Republic of Korea, the United States, and Singapore, with TNBC who had ongoing stable disease or complete/partial response from first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
• The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olaparib 300 mg twice daily with or without durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks.
• The authors compared PFS with a historical control of continued platinum-based therapy. An improvement to 4 months with maintenance therapy was considered clinically significant.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a follow-up of 9.8 months, patients who received olaparib alone demonstrated median PFS of 4.0 months, and those who received the combination therapy had median PFS of 6.1 months.
• Clinical benefit rates, defined as stable disease for at least 24 weeks or complete/partial response, were reported in 44% of the monotherapy group and 36% of the combination therapy group.
• Sustained clinical benefit was evident irrespective of germline BRCA mutation or programmed death-ligand 1 status, although it tended to be associated with complete or partial response to prior platinum.
• Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in nine patients (39%) in the olaparib arm and eight patients (36%) in the combination arm. No treatment-related deaths or new safety signals were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“Maintenance regimens are rarely used in [triple-negative breast cancer] but offer the possibility of more tolerable long-term treatment avoiding some of the chemotherapy-related side effects of more aggressive regimens, as is standard in the first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced breast cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tira J. Tan from Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, was published online on January 18, 2024, in Clinical Cancer Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were the small sample size and lack of a standard control arm. Most patients (76%) were Asian, limiting generalizability. The trial was not designed to compare olaparib monotherapy and olaparib plus durvalumab regimens.

DISCLOSURES:

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP supported this study. Several authors reported financial support from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 14-year-old girl arrived at a South Carolina clinic just one day after the state’s anti-abortion law would have allowed her to terminate a pregnancy in instances of rape or incest. 

Angela Dempsey-Fanning, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in Charleston, had to inform the teenager, a victim of incest, that she could not legally provide abortion care, so the girl and her mother decided to seek treatment in a different state. 

“I couldn’t shake the sense that so many principles of medical ethics were being violated in denying care to her,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning, president of the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit that advocates for abortion access. “When I interact with patients in these situations ... I carry the emotional and mental burden for weeks.” 

South Carolina is one of 16 states to put in place severe abortion restrictions in the wake of the US Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

The outcome is an “occupational crisis” for many ob.gyns. like Dr. Dempsey-Fanning who practice in states where abortion is restricted or banned, according to a study recently published in the JAMA Network Open. 

Public discourse on the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling has mostly centered on the impact to patients, according to Mara Buchbinder, PhD, professor and vice chair in the Department of Social Medicine at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and a coauthor of the study. 

“We were interested in what the impacts would be for the obstetric workforce as well,” she said. 

In 2022 and 2023, Dr. Buchbinder and her colleagues interviewed 54 ob.gyns. practicing in 13 states where abortion had become illegal with limited exceptions, including Texas, West Virginia, and South Dakota. 

Clinicians who participated in the study described instances in which the state restrictions on abortion forced them to delay what they deemed to be medically necessary care until a patient faced severe complications or even death. More than 90% reported moral distress concerning situations where legal constraints prevented them or their colleagues from following clinical standards. 

“You have somebody hemorrhaging with an intrauterine pregnancy with a heartbeat ... I [didn’t yet] have legal coverage for that, but there’s only so many times you can transfuse somebody and they’re begging for their life before you say, ‘This is unconscionable,’ ” one clinician reported to researchers. 

Another clinician said, “Is a 5% risk of death enough? Does it take 20%? Does it take 50%? What is enough legally?” 

The US Department of Health and Human Services has announced a new team to ensure hospitals in all states comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which, according to the Biden administration, includes emergency abortions. Still, some hospitals may not have clear policies that define pregnancy-related emergencies, making it challenging for clinicians to feel protected in clinically complex situations. 

The study also highlighted aiding and abetting clauses, which prevent ob.gyns. from providing referrals for abortions or discussing the option with patients. Participants described the limitations as undermining their medical expertise. 

“Some of the harm that is done to these ob.gyns. is not only from the laws themselves, but from their own institutions,” Dr. Buchbinder said. “Hospitals have to decide, ‘what does this law mean and how are we going to put it to practice here?’ ” 

Angela Hawkins, MD, a hospitalist practicing in Oklahoma, encountered a patient who was experiencing an obvious miscarriage. But because the situation could not yet be established as life-threatening, Dr. Hawkins felt that she could not intervene. 

“There are things I know are straightforward and I would’ve handled them completely differently in the past,” Dr. Hawkins said, adding that she needed to seek reassurance from her hospital employer that she would not face legal ramifications if she provided care. 

“It’s frustrating to know that this is medicine and I can’t practice it without calling legal and ethics in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Hawkins, chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

Still, more than half of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are considered maternity care deserts, meaning they have little to no obstetric services available for pregnant patients. Dr. Hawkins recently completed her own survey of practicing ob.gyns. in the state. In soon-to-be published research, almost 60% of the 63 respondents reported thinking about leaving or were planning to leave the state to practice in areas that are less restrictive. 

“That’s very concerning to the ob.gyns. that are left,” she said. “I feel like, if everyone leaves, who is left to take care of the patients?” 

The study in JAMA Network Open also highlighted that 11% of participants had moved their practices to less restrictive states with stronger abortion protections. 

In addition to losing existing clinicians, the laws have made it difficult for medical centers to recruit new ones, according to Kavita Shah Arora, MD, MBE, MS, director for Division of General Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Midwifery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the study. North Carolina enacted a new law in July 2023 that reduced the time allowed for an abortion from 20 weeks to 12 weeks under most circumstances. 

“Our department faces new challenges in recruitment and retention being in a restrictive state that we haven’t had to deal with before,” Dr. Arora said. “It’s impacting how medical students choose which residency programs to apply to.” 

Ob.gyns. may not be the only clinicians who feel the effect of laws restricting abortion, according to Deborah Nucatola, MD, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. 

Patients who live in areas with limited access to obstetrics services often present to urgent care facilities or emergency departments for medical care that are staffed with family, internal medicine, and emergency physicians, Dr. Nucatola said. 

“I don’t want anyone by any means to think this is isolated to one specialty,” said Dr. Nucatola, who was not involved with the study. “It’s going to affect everyone who cares for these patients; you lose the ability to use your medical knowledge and then have to navigate this legal restriction that doesn’t correlate with anything that happens in medicine.”

Dr. Dempsey-Fanning’s 14-year-old patient did eventually receive abortion care outside of South Carolina. Dr. Dempsey-Fanning said that she and her colleagues have spent hours coordinating for patients to receive care in a different state. Then, patients and their families must come up with the money for travel and any missed work to get to another clinician working where abortion is legal. 

Despite this, she said, “You are left still feeling as though you abandoned this patient in many practical ways. 

“I know I weigh the decision about my future practice almost daily, wondering how long I can stay and keep fighting for patients in an environment ripe with fear, worry, and an overriding sense of injustice,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning. 

The study authors and experts quoted in the story report no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 14-year-old girl arrived at a South Carolina clinic just one day after the state’s anti-abortion law would have allowed her to terminate a pregnancy in instances of rape or incest. 

Angela Dempsey-Fanning, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in Charleston, had to inform the teenager, a victim of incest, that she could not legally provide abortion care, so the girl and her mother decided to seek treatment in a different state. 

“I couldn’t shake the sense that so many principles of medical ethics were being violated in denying care to her,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning, president of the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit that advocates for abortion access. “When I interact with patients in these situations ... I carry the emotional and mental burden for weeks.” 

South Carolina is one of 16 states to put in place severe abortion restrictions in the wake of the US Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

The outcome is an “occupational crisis” for many ob.gyns. like Dr. Dempsey-Fanning who practice in states where abortion is restricted or banned, according to a study recently published in the JAMA Network Open. 

Public discourse on the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling has mostly centered on the impact to patients, according to Mara Buchbinder, PhD, professor and vice chair in the Department of Social Medicine at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and a coauthor of the study. 

“We were interested in what the impacts would be for the obstetric workforce as well,” she said. 

In 2022 and 2023, Dr. Buchbinder and her colleagues interviewed 54 ob.gyns. practicing in 13 states where abortion had become illegal with limited exceptions, including Texas, West Virginia, and South Dakota. 

Clinicians who participated in the study described instances in which the state restrictions on abortion forced them to delay what they deemed to be medically necessary care until a patient faced severe complications or even death. More than 90% reported moral distress concerning situations where legal constraints prevented them or their colleagues from following clinical standards. 

“You have somebody hemorrhaging with an intrauterine pregnancy with a heartbeat ... I [didn’t yet] have legal coverage for that, but there’s only so many times you can transfuse somebody and they’re begging for their life before you say, ‘This is unconscionable,’ ” one clinician reported to researchers. 

Another clinician said, “Is a 5% risk of death enough? Does it take 20%? Does it take 50%? What is enough legally?” 

The US Department of Health and Human Services has announced a new team to ensure hospitals in all states comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which, according to the Biden administration, includes emergency abortions. Still, some hospitals may not have clear policies that define pregnancy-related emergencies, making it challenging for clinicians to feel protected in clinically complex situations. 

The study also highlighted aiding and abetting clauses, which prevent ob.gyns. from providing referrals for abortions or discussing the option with patients. Participants described the limitations as undermining their medical expertise. 

“Some of the harm that is done to these ob.gyns. is not only from the laws themselves, but from their own institutions,” Dr. Buchbinder said. “Hospitals have to decide, ‘what does this law mean and how are we going to put it to practice here?’ ” 

Angela Hawkins, MD, a hospitalist practicing in Oklahoma, encountered a patient who was experiencing an obvious miscarriage. But because the situation could not yet be established as life-threatening, Dr. Hawkins felt that she could not intervene. 

“There are things I know are straightforward and I would’ve handled them completely differently in the past,” Dr. Hawkins said, adding that she needed to seek reassurance from her hospital employer that she would not face legal ramifications if she provided care. 

“It’s frustrating to know that this is medicine and I can’t practice it without calling legal and ethics in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Hawkins, chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

Still, more than half of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are considered maternity care deserts, meaning they have little to no obstetric services available for pregnant patients. Dr. Hawkins recently completed her own survey of practicing ob.gyns. in the state. In soon-to-be published research, almost 60% of the 63 respondents reported thinking about leaving or were planning to leave the state to practice in areas that are less restrictive. 

“That’s very concerning to the ob.gyns. that are left,” she said. “I feel like, if everyone leaves, who is left to take care of the patients?” 

The study in JAMA Network Open also highlighted that 11% of participants had moved their practices to less restrictive states with stronger abortion protections. 

In addition to losing existing clinicians, the laws have made it difficult for medical centers to recruit new ones, according to Kavita Shah Arora, MD, MBE, MS, director for Division of General Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Midwifery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the study. North Carolina enacted a new law in July 2023 that reduced the time allowed for an abortion from 20 weeks to 12 weeks under most circumstances. 

“Our department faces new challenges in recruitment and retention being in a restrictive state that we haven’t had to deal with before,” Dr. Arora said. “It’s impacting how medical students choose which residency programs to apply to.” 

Ob.gyns. may not be the only clinicians who feel the effect of laws restricting abortion, according to Deborah Nucatola, MD, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. 

Patients who live in areas with limited access to obstetrics services often present to urgent care facilities or emergency departments for medical care that are staffed with family, internal medicine, and emergency physicians, Dr. Nucatola said. 

“I don’t want anyone by any means to think this is isolated to one specialty,” said Dr. Nucatola, who was not involved with the study. “It’s going to affect everyone who cares for these patients; you lose the ability to use your medical knowledge and then have to navigate this legal restriction that doesn’t correlate with anything that happens in medicine.”

Dr. Dempsey-Fanning’s 14-year-old patient did eventually receive abortion care outside of South Carolina. Dr. Dempsey-Fanning said that she and her colleagues have spent hours coordinating for patients to receive care in a different state. Then, patients and their families must come up with the money for travel and any missed work to get to another clinician working where abortion is legal. 

Despite this, she said, “You are left still feeling as though you abandoned this patient in many practical ways. 

“I know I weigh the decision about my future practice almost daily, wondering how long I can stay and keep fighting for patients in an environment ripe with fear, worry, and an overriding sense of injustice,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning. 

The study authors and experts quoted in the story report no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 14-year-old girl arrived at a South Carolina clinic just one day after the state’s anti-abortion law would have allowed her to terminate a pregnancy in instances of rape or incest. 

Angela Dempsey-Fanning, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in Charleston, had to inform the teenager, a victim of incest, that she could not legally provide abortion care, so the girl and her mother decided to seek treatment in a different state. 

“I couldn’t shake the sense that so many principles of medical ethics were being violated in denying care to her,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning, president of the Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit that advocates for abortion access. “When I interact with patients in these situations ... I carry the emotional and mental burden for weeks.” 

South Carolina is one of 16 states to put in place severe abortion restrictions in the wake of the US Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

The outcome is an “occupational crisis” for many ob.gyns. like Dr. Dempsey-Fanning who practice in states where abortion is restricted or banned, according to a study recently published in the JAMA Network Open. 

Public discourse on the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling has mostly centered on the impact to patients, according to Mara Buchbinder, PhD, professor and vice chair in the Department of Social Medicine at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and a coauthor of the study. 

“We were interested in what the impacts would be for the obstetric workforce as well,” she said. 

In 2022 and 2023, Dr. Buchbinder and her colleagues interviewed 54 ob.gyns. practicing in 13 states where abortion had become illegal with limited exceptions, including Texas, West Virginia, and South Dakota. 

Clinicians who participated in the study described instances in which the state restrictions on abortion forced them to delay what they deemed to be medically necessary care until a patient faced severe complications or even death. More than 90% reported moral distress concerning situations where legal constraints prevented them or their colleagues from following clinical standards. 

“You have somebody hemorrhaging with an intrauterine pregnancy with a heartbeat ... I [didn’t yet] have legal coverage for that, but there’s only so many times you can transfuse somebody and they’re begging for their life before you say, ‘This is unconscionable,’ ” one clinician reported to researchers. 

Another clinician said, “Is a 5% risk of death enough? Does it take 20%? Does it take 50%? What is enough legally?” 

The US Department of Health and Human Services has announced a new team to ensure hospitals in all states comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which, according to the Biden administration, includes emergency abortions. Still, some hospitals may not have clear policies that define pregnancy-related emergencies, making it challenging for clinicians to feel protected in clinically complex situations. 

The study also highlighted aiding and abetting clauses, which prevent ob.gyns. from providing referrals for abortions or discussing the option with patients. Participants described the limitations as undermining their medical expertise. 

“Some of the harm that is done to these ob.gyns. is not only from the laws themselves, but from their own institutions,” Dr. Buchbinder said. “Hospitals have to decide, ‘what does this law mean and how are we going to put it to practice here?’ ” 

Angela Hawkins, MD, a hospitalist practicing in Oklahoma, encountered a patient who was experiencing an obvious miscarriage. But because the situation could not yet be established as life-threatening, Dr. Hawkins felt that she could not intervene. 

“There are things I know are straightforward and I would’ve handled them completely differently in the past,” Dr. Hawkins said, adding that she needed to seek reassurance from her hospital employer that she would not face legal ramifications if she provided care. 

“It’s frustrating to know that this is medicine and I can’t practice it without calling legal and ethics in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Hawkins, chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

Still, more than half of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are considered maternity care deserts, meaning they have little to no obstetric services available for pregnant patients. Dr. Hawkins recently completed her own survey of practicing ob.gyns. in the state. In soon-to-be published research, almost 60% of the 63 respondents reported thinking about leaving or were planning to leave the state to practice in areas that are less restrictive. 

“That’s very concerning to the ob.gyns. that are left,” she said. “I feel like, if everyone leaves, who is left to take care of the patients?” 

The study in JAMA Network Open also highlighted that 11% of participants had moved their practices to less restrictive states with stronger abortion protections. 

In addition to losing existing clinicians, the laws have made it difficult for medical centers to recruit new ones, according to Kavita Shah Arora, MD, MBE, MS, director for Division of General Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Midwifery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the study. North Carolina enacted a new law in July 2023 that reduced the time allowed for an abortion from 20 weeks to 12 weeks under most circumstances. 

“Our department faces new challenges in recruitment and retention being in a restrictive state that we haven’t had to deal with before,” Dr. Arora said. “It’s impacting how medical students choose which residency programs to apply to.” 

Ob.gyns. may not be the only clinicians who feel the effect of laws restricting abortion, according to Deborah Nucatola, MD, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. 

Patients who live in areas with limited access to obstetrics services often present to urgent care facilities or emergency departments for medical care that are staffed with family, internal medicine, and emergency physicians, Dr. Nucatola said. 

“I don’t want anyone by any means to think this is isolated to one specialty,” said Dr. Nucatola, who was not involved with the study. “It’s going to affect everyone who cares for these patients; you lose the ability to use your medical knowledge and then have to navigate this legal restriction that doesn’t correlate with anything that happens in medicine.”

Dr. Dempsey-Fanning’s 14-year-old patient did eventually receive abortion care outside of South Carolina. Dr. Dempsey-Fanning said that she and her colleagues have spent hours coordinating for patients to receive care in a different state. Then, patients and their families must come up with the money for travel and any missed work to get to another clinician working where abortion is legal. 

Despite this, she said, “You are left still feeling as though you abandoned this patient in many practical ways. 

“I know I weigh the decision about my future practice almost daily, wondering how long I can stay and keep fighting for patients in an environment ripe with fear, worry, and an overriding sense of injustice,” said Dr. Dempsey-Fanning. 

The study authors and experts quoted in the story report no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening strategy in postmenopausal women demonstrated a high specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer, with most identified as stage I or II disease, a new analysis with a 21-year follow-up found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Detecting ovarian cancer at stage I or II could significantly reduce ovarian cancer-related deaths, but only 25%-30% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage.
• In this single-arm prospective analysis, 7,856 healthy postmenopausal women received annual screening for ovarian cancer between 2011 and 2022. Screening involved an annual blood test to detect levels of cancer antigen 125 and track these levels over time.
• Investigators used the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) to determine whether ovarian cancer risk was normal, intermediate, or high. Those with elevated ROCA scores were referred for transvaginal sonography; those with intermediate scores received follow-up blood tests every 3 months.
• Overall, 92.3% of women were normal risk, 5.7% were intermediate, and 2% were high risk and recommended for transvaginal sonography.

TAKEAWAY:

• Most women (95.5%) referred for transvaginal ultrasound had one. Of these ultrasounds, most (90%) were negative or revealed benign findings, 5.2% required a repeat ultrasound, and 4.8% (34 patients) showed suspicious findings.
• Of 34 patients with suspicious findings and recommended for surgery, 15 had ovarian cancer and two had borderline tumors, indicating a positive predictive value of 50% (17 of 34 patients) for ovarian cancer. Of these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) had stage I or II disease.
• Following abnormal ROCA results, seven other women were diagnosed with endometrial tumors (six of which were stage I), indicating a positive predictive value of 74% (25 of 34) for any cancer.
• The specificity for elevated risk ROCA prompting ultrasound was 98%, and the specificity of the ROCA and ultrasound prompting surgery was 99.8%. The sensitivity for detecting ovarian and borderline cancer was 74% (17 of 23).

IN PRACTICE:

“Remarkably, 70% of ovarian cancers detected by the ROCA” were early stage,” the authors concluded. Although the trial was not powered to detect reduced mortality, the high specificity, positive predictive value, and shift to identifying earlier-stage cancers “support further development of this strategy,” the investigators said.

LIMITATIONS:

This trial was not powered to detect mortality benefit. Six ovarian cancers and borderline tumors were missed. Only 80% of ovarian cancers express cancer antigen 125, potentially limiting the sensitivity of the algorithm.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Chae Young Han from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, was published online on January 12 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funds from the NCI Early Detection Research Network, the MD Anderson Ovarian SPOREs, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others. The authors reported receiving research funding, grants, consulting, and personal fees from various companies, including Curio Science, Fujirebio Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.