Perspectives

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I, like every pediatrician I know, believe that breast milk is the best nutrition for human newborns. Its balance of nutritive elements and its role in preventing of a wide range of illnesses are so great that we are still learning the extent of their magnitude. It just makes sense that a mother’s milk is most well suited for her baby.

I am a bit less unambiguous about breastfeeding. By that I mean the process of providing breast milk to an infant directly from its mother’s breast. Before you yank my AAP membership card, let me make it clear that I think every woman should consider breastfeeding her infant. But we must accept that in a few situations, even with help from caring and enlightened health care providers and family members, breastfeeding doesn’t work as well as we would have hoped. Fortunately, there are alternatives.

My reservations about the process are few, and until recently I have had an unwaveringly positive attitude toward the safety of breast milk. The cause of my little bit of uncertainty arrived in a recent study by two researchers at the Dana Farber Institute in Boston, in which the investigators examining the health histories of more than 150,000 women found that those who were breastfed incurred a 23% greater risk of developing colorectal cancer when they reached adulthood. A younger cohort within that larger group had a dramatic 40% increased risk of developing high-risk cancer before reaching age 55.

The population the investigators studied came from the large Nurses’ Health Study II, a well-known repository of longitudinal health data. The researchers reported that they included biometric data and a large collection of lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake, and diet in their calculations. However, breastfeeding continued to register the highest association. Interestingly, the investigators found that women who were breastfed for 9 months or longer had twice the risk of colorectal cancer as those who breastfed for from 4 to 8 months.

The study population was all women and predominantly white. However, in the general population it is the non-Hispanic white population that is experiencing the greatest increase in incidence. Of course, the study could not answer whether this association with breastfeeding also existed in minority populations.

The researchers suspect that what they are seeing is a reflection of the Westernization of the American lifestyle. One of the researchers is interested in the gut biome of infants and plans to further the investigation in that direction. Could some substance from the environment be concentrating in breast milk? Or is something missing in breast milk? She points out that, while formulas are generally fortified with vitamin D, breast milk is not.

As concerning as the results of this study may sound, the authors are very careful to urge mothers to continue to breastfeed and choose it as their first choice for feeding their babies. I have been pleasantly surprised that this study has not gotten widespread media attention because bad news travels fast. I have chosen to share it with you because at some point you may begin getting questions from concerned parents.

While apparently well done, this study is just the beginning. Like any good research, it poses more questions than it answers. For us as pediatricians it means we should continue to recommend breast milk as the first food. But, we must stay alert as further research looks deeper into this association.

We should also take advantage of our special access to young parents, a demographic that less frequently sees a physician for preventive care. For whatever reason colorectal cancer is occurring at younger ages. When we have the opportunity we should be reminding 40-year-olds not to wait until age 50 to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly if they have a family history of the disease.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].