MDedge Pediatrics

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

A limited association exists between the use of isotretinoin for severe acne and worsening of a patient’s baseline inflammatory bowel disease, results from a small retrospective study suggests.

“Early studies of isotretinoin for use in severe acne suggested the drug may serve as a trigger for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),” researchers led by Christina G. Lopez, MD, of the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, wrote in an article published online , in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “While more recent studies have suggested no such causal relationship, little is known about the medication’s effect on patients with a preexisting IBD diagnosis.”

To investigate this topic further, the researchers identified 19 patients who were diagnosed with IBD and treated with isotretinoin between Jan. 1, 2006, and Jan. 1, 2020, at Mass General Brigham Hospitals, Boston. They determined severity of disease and degree of antecedent management of IBD by evaluating flaring two years prior to starting isotretinoin. The patients were considered to have a flare caused by isotretinoin if the IBD flare occurred during or up to 3 months following course completion.

The mean age of the 19 patients was 35 years, 26% were female, and 95% were White. Nearly half of the patients (42%) had ulcerative colitis, 37% had Crohn’s disease, and 21% had both. The researchers found that nine patients had flared two years before starting isotretinoin. Of these, five (56%) flared and four (44%) did not flare during treatment or within three months of completing the course of isotretinoin.

Of the 10 patients who did not flare two years before starting isotretinoin, seven (70%) did not flare during treatment and three (30%) flared during or within three months following completion of isotretinoin use. The researchers found no statistically significant association between isotretinoin use and flaring among patients with IBD (P = .76).

Dr. Lopez and her colleagues also assessed IBD maintenance therapy with respect to IBD flares in the study population. They observed no statistically significant association between the use of maintenance IBD therapy and the likelihood of having flares during isotretinoin treatment (P = .15).

“The results suggest limited association between isotretinoin and the worsening of a patient’s baseline IBD,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and retrospective design, and they called for larger and prospective studies to assess the relationship of IBD flaring in this population of patients.

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the trial as “an important study highlighting how we continue to understand the safe use of isotretinoin in the IBD cohort.”

Isotretinoin, she added, “continues to be a highly important treatment for acne and in patients such as these where oral antibiotics are relatively contraindicated due to risk of exacerbating their bowel disease.” Such data are reassuring, “albeit future studies with larger patient pools are desirable,” she added. “Future studies could also help to elucidate if diet, smoking, sleep, exercise, and medication adherence are potential confounding factors along with whether the cumulative isotretinoin dose has any effect on IBD flares in those who are susceptible.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha had financial conflicts. The other authors were from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, and the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

A limited association exists between the use of isotretinoin for severe acne and worsening of a patient’s baseline inflammatory bowel disease, results from a small retrospective study suggests.

“Early studies of isotretinoin for use in severe acne suggested the drug may serve as a trigger for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),” researchers led by Christina G. Lopez, MD, of the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, wrote in an article published online , in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “While more recent studies have suggested no such causal relationship, little is known about the medication’s effect on patients with a preexisting IBD diagnosis.”

To investigate this topic further, the researchers identified 19 patients who were diagnosed with IBD and treated with isotretinoin between Jan. 1, 2006, and Jan. 1, 2020, at Mass General Brigham Hospitals, Boston. They determined severity of disease and degree of antecedent management of IBD by evaluating flaring two years prior to starting isotretinoin. The patients were considered to have a flare caused by isotretinoin if the IBD flare occurred during or up to 3 months following course completion.

The mean age of the 19 patients was 35 years, 26% were female, and 95% were White. Nearly half of the patients (42%) had ulcerative colitis, 37% had Crohn’s disease, and 21% had both. The researchers found that nine patients had flared two years before starting isotretinoin. Of these, five (56%) flared and four (44%) did not flare during treatment or within three months of completing the course of isotretinoin.

Of the 10 patients who did not flare two years before starting isotretinoin, seven (70%) did not flare during treatment and three (30%) flared during or within three months following completion of isotretinoin use. The researchers found no statistically significant association between isotretinoin use and flaring among patients with IBD (P = .76).

Dr. Lopez and her colleagues also assessed IBD maintenance therapy with respect to IBD flares in the study population. They observed no statistically significant association between the use of maintenance IBD therapy and the likelihood of having flares during isotretinoin treatment (P = .15).

“The results suggest limited association between isotretinoin and the worsening of a patient’s baseline IBD,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and retrospective design, and they called for larger and prospective studies to assess the relationship of IBD flaring in this population of patients.

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the trial as “an important study highlighting how we continue to understand the safe use of isotretinoin in the IBD cohort.”

Isotretinoin, she added, “continues to be a highly important treatment for acne and in patients such as these where oral antibiotics are relatively contraindicated due to risk of exacerbating their bowel disease.” Such data are reassuring, “albeit future studies with larger patient pools are desirable,” she added. “Future studies could also help to elucidate if diet, smoking, sleep, exercise, and medication adherence are potential confounding factors along with whether the cumulative isotretinoin dose has any effect on IBD flares in those who are susceptible.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha had financial conflicts. The other authors were from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, and the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

A limited association exists between the use of isotretinoin for severe acne and worsening of a patient’s baseline inflammatory bowel disease, results from a small retrospective study suggests.

“Early studies of isotretinoin for use in severe acne suggested the drug may serve as a trigger for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),” researchers led by Christina G. Lopez, MD, of the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, wrote in an article published online , in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “While more recent studies have suggested no such causal relationship, little is known about the medication’s effect on patients with a preexisting IBD diagnosis.”

To investigate this topic further, the researchers identified 19 patients who were diagnosed with IBD and treated with isotretinoin between Jan. 1, 2006, and Jan. 1, 2020, at Mass General Brigham Hospitals, Boston. They determined severity of disease and degree of antecedent management of IBD by evaluating flaring two years prior to starting isotretinoin. The patients were considered to have a flare caused by isotretinoin if the IBD flare occurred during or up to 3 months following course completion.

The mean age of the 19 patients was 35 years, 26% were female, and 95% were White. Nearly half of the patients (42%) had ulcerative colitis, 37% had Crohn’s disease, and 21% had both. The researchers found that nine patients had flared two years before starting isotretinoin. Of these, five (56%) flared and four (44%) did not flare during treatment or within three months of completing the course of isotretinoin.

Of the 10 patients who did not flare two years before starting isotretinoin, seven (70%) did not flare during treatment and three (30%) flared during or within three months following completion of isotretinoin use. The researchers found no statistically significant association between isotretinoin use and flaring among patients with IBD (P = .76).

Dr. Lopez and her colleagues also assessed IBD maintenance therapy with respect to IBD flares in the study population. They observed no statistically significant association between the use of maintenance IBD therapy and the likelihood of having flares during isotretinoin treatment (P = .15).

“The results suggest limited association between isotretinoin and the worsening of a patient’s baseline IBD,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and retrospective design, and they called for larger and prospective studies to assess the relationship of IBD flaring in this population of patients.

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the trial as “an important study highlighting how we continue to understand the safe use of isotretinoin in the IBD cohort.”

Isotretinoin, she added, “continues to be a highly important treatment for acne and in patients such as these where oral antibiotics are relatively contraindicated due to risk of exacerbating their bowel disease.” Such data are reassuring, “albeit future studies with larger patient pools are desirable,” she added. “Future studies could also help to elucidate if diet, smoking, sleep, exercise, and medication adherence are potential confounding factors along with whether the cumulative isotretinoin dose has any effect on IBD flares in those who are susceptible.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha had financial conflicts. The other authors were from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, and the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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