VIDEO: Half of after-hours calls to endocrinology fellows are nonurgent

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 06/19/2019 - 15:55

Many calls to endocrinology fellows are often not urgent and could be directed to the clinic, potentially reducing work burden on the on-call fellows, a review of one center’s call logs suggests.

Nearly half of all calls were not urgent, many were after hours, and refill requests constituted the most common reason the patient initiated contact, according to Uzma Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, who presented results of the call log review in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

The log review was part of a quality initiative intended to streamline care of patients to their primary endocrinologists whenever appropriate, according to Dr. Siddiqui, a second-year fellow at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

“A lot of these calls were happening after 6:00 p.m. until midnight, sometimes waking fellows up from their sleep,” Dr. Siddiqui said in an interview. “Fellows thought that these were disruptive to their personal life, and also it was causing frustration among patients when they were not able to reach their primary endocrinologists.”

On-call endocrinology fellows logged a total of 100 calls between July and August 2017. Of those calls, the fellows categorized 47% as nonurgent, Dr. Siddiqui reported.

About one-quarter of the calls came in between 8 p.m. and 3 a.m., with an average of 1.6 calls logged per 24-hour period. The actual average is probably higher, since fellows missed logging some calls during busy inpatient service days, the investigators said.

The most common reason for the calls, at 39%, was for refills of insulin, test strips, or noninsulin medication, which could have been directed to the clinic, according to Dr. Siddiqui and coauthors of the poster.

 

 


The rest of the calls were for insulin pump failure (9%), hyperglycemia (14%) or hypoglycemia (9%), concerns related to insulin regimen (9%) or thyroid-related medication (5%), requests for test results (4%), fever or rash reports (6%), and inpatient consults (5%).

To tackle the issue of nonurgent calls, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have been educating patients to call during work hours for test results, and to request refills 3 business days ahead of time. In addition, they are reminding providers to ask about refills during the clinic visit and to discuss with patients when an after-hours call because of blood glucose thresholds would be warranted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues are now analyzing results of these initiatives to show to what extent they are reducing work burden on fellows and improving patient satisfaction.

“Even in the past 2-3 months, we have seen a significant improvement,” Dr. Siddiqui said.

“The patients get to speak to their primary endocrinologist and are happier with their care, because they have one provider, one person who’s answering their questions,” she added. “With this, we also reduced the burden of nonurgent calls, so the fellows have more personal time, are not getting disturbed in their sleep, and have less chances of being over worked or fatigued.”

Dr. Siddiqui reported no disclosures related to the presentation.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Many calls to endocrinology fellows are often not urgent and could be directed to the clinic, potentially reducing work burden on the on-call fellows, a review of one center’s call logs suggests.

Nearly half of all calls were not urgent, many were after hours, and refill requests constituted the most common reason the patient initiated contact, according to Uzma Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, who presented results of the call log review in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

The log review was part of a quality initiative intended to streamline care of patients to their primary endocrinologists whenever appropriate, according to Dr. Siddiqui, a second-year fellow at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

“A lot of these calls were happening after 6:00 p.m. until midnight, sometimes waking fellows up from their sleep,” Dr. Siddiqui said in an interview. “Fellows thought that these were disruptive to their personal life, and also it was causing frustration among patients when they were not able to reach their primary endocrinologists.”

On-call endocrinology fellows logged a total of 100 calls between July and August 2017. Of those calls, the fellows categorized 47% as nonurgent, Dr. Siddiqui reported.

About one-quarter of the calls came in between 8 p.m. and 3 a.m., with an average of 1.6 calls logged per 24-hour period. The actual average is probably higher, since fellows missed logging some calls during busy inpatient service days, the investigators said.

The most common reason for the calls, at 39%, was for refills of insulin, test strips, or noninsulin medication, which could have been directed to the clinic, according to Dr. Siddiqui and coauthors of the poster.

 

 


The rest of the calls were for insulin pump failure (9%), hyperglycemia (14%) or hypoglycemia (9%), concerns related to insulin regimen (9%) or thyroid-related medication (5%), requests for test results (4%), fever or rash reports (6%), and inpatient consults (5%).

To tackle the issue of nonurgent calls, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have been educating patients to call during work hours for test results, and to request refills 3 business days ahead of time. In addition, they are reminding providers to ask about refills during the clinic visit and to discuss with patients when an after-hours call because of blood glucose thresholds would be warranted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues are now analyzing results of these initiatives to show to what extent they are reducing work burden on fellows and improving patient satisfaction.

“Even in the past 2-3 months, we have seen a significant improvement,” Dr. Siddiqui said.

“The patients get to speak to their primary endocrinologist and are happier with their care, because they have one provider, one person who’s answering their questions,” she added. “With this, we also reduced the burden of nonurgent calls, so the fellows have more personal time, are not getting disturbed in their sleep, and have less chances of being over worked or fatigued.”

Dr. Siddiqui reported no disclosures related to the presentation.

Many calls to endocrinology fellows are often not urgent and could be directed to the clinic, potentially reducing work burden on the on-call fellows, a review of one center’s call logs suggests.

Nearly half of all calls were not urgent, many were after hours, and refill requests constituted the most common reason the patient initiated contact, according to Uzma Mohammad Siddiqui, MD, who presented results of the call log review in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

The log review was part of a quality initiative intended to streamline care of patients to their primary endocrinologists whenever appropriate, according to Dr. Siddiqui, a second-year fellow at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

“A lot of these calls were happening after 6:00 p.m. until midnight, sometimes waking fellows up from their sleep,” Dr. Siddiqui said in an interview. “Fellows thought that these were disruptive to their personal life, and also it was causing frustration among patients when they were not able to reach their primary endocrinologists.”

On-call endocrinology fellows logged a total of 100 calls between July and August 2017. Of those calls, the fellows categorized 47% as nonurgent, Dr. Siddiqui reported.

About one-quarter of the calls came in between 8 p.m. and 3 a.m., with an average of 1.6 calls logged per 24-hour period. The actual average is probably higher, since fellows missed logging some calls during busy inpatient service days, the investigators said.

The most common reason for the calls, at 39%, was for refills of insulin, test strips, or noninsulin medication, which could have been directed to the clinic, according to Dr. Siddiqui and coauthors of the poster.

 

 


The rest of the calls were for insulin pump failure (9%), hyperglycemia (14%) or hypoglycemia (9%), concerns related to insulin regimen (9%) or thyroid-related medication (5%), requests for test results (4%), fever or rash reports (6%), and inpatient consults (5%).

To tackle the issue of nonurgent calls, Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues have been educating patients to call during work hours for test results, and to request refills 3 business days ahead of time. In addition, they are reminding providers to ask about refills during the clinic visit and to discuss with patients when an after-hours call because of blood glucose thresholds would be warranted.

Dr. Siddiqui and colleagues are now analyzing results of these initiatives to show to what extent they are reducing work burden on fellows and improving patient satisfaction.

“Even in the past 2-3 months, we have seen a significant improvement,” Dr. Siddiqui said.

“The patients get to speak to their primary endocrinologist and are happier with their care, because they have one provider, one person who’s answering their questions,” she added. “With this, we also reduced the burden of nonurgent calls, so the fellows have more personal time, are not getting disturbed in their sleep, and have less chances of being over worked or fatigued.”

Dr. Siddiqui reported no disclosures related to the presentation.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM AACE 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Calls to endocrinology fellows often are not urgent and could be directed to the clinic, potentially reducing work burden and improving patient satisfaction.

Major finding: On-call fellows documented 47% of calls as nonurgent, and medication or test strip refills were the most common reason for calls.

Study details: A quality initiative based on 100 calls logged by on-call endocrinology fellows at a single institution in July-August 2017.

Disclosures: The primary study author had no disclosures.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

VIDEO: CASTLE-AF suggests atrial fibrillation burden better predicts outcomes

AF ablation succeeds despite recurrences
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– From the earliest days of using catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation (AF), in the 1990s, clinicians have defined ablation success based on whether patients had recurrence of their arrhythmia following treatment. New findings suggest that this standard was off, and that a much better measure of ablation’s success is the extent to which it cuts atrial fibrillation burden, the overall percentage of time a patient spends in the arrhythmic state.

The new study used data collected in the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) multicenter trial, which compared the efficacy of AF ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in patients with heart failure for improving survival and freedom from hospitalization for heart failure. The trial’s primary finding showed that, in 363 randomized patients, AF ablation cut the primary adverse event rate by 38% relative to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (New Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27)

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Johannes Brachmann
Post hoc analysis of the CASTLE-AF results has shown that patients whose AF burden was reduced to less than 6% after ablation experienced a 2.5- to 3.3-fold increased rate of freedom from adverse outcomes, compared with patients with posttreatment AF burdens of 6% or greater when investigators followed them for a year, Johannes Brachmann, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. In contrast, the incidence of AF recurrence following ablation had no statistically significant relationship with freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure, and the effects of antiarrhythmic drug treatment on both AF burden and AF recurrence had no significant relationship with CASTLE-AF’s primary outcome, said Dr. Brachmann, professor and chief of cardiology at the Coburg (Germany) Clinic.

“There have been concerns about the high recurrence rate of AF following ablation,” with reported cumulative recurrence rates running as high as 80% by 5 years after ablation, noted Dr. Brachmann. “The news now is that recurrence alone doesn’t make a difference; we can still help patients” by reducing their AF burden, although he cautioned that this relationship has so far only been seen in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the type of patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.

“This information is very informative for clinicians counseling patients who undergo ablation. Ablation may not eliminate all of a patient’s AF, but it will substantially reduce it, and that’s associated with better outcomes,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “Early on using ablation, we had a curative approach and used ablation to ‘clip the wire.’ Now we have growing, objective evidence for ‘debulking’ the problem” working without the need to completely eliminate all AF episodes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Andrew D. Krahn
The CASTLE-AF data “give tantalizing information into the question of whether you need to reduce AF or totally stop it to have a benefit in patients with heart failure,” commented Mark S. Link, MD, professor and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “There is plenty of evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs are of little benefit for HFrEF [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction] patients with AF. It’s a real stretch of these new findings to say these patients need to first fail treatment with at least one antiarrhythmic drug before they should be offered ablation.”

To run the post hoc analysis Dr. Brachmann and his associates categorized the 363 patients randomized in CASTLE-AF by the treatment they received during the study’s first 12 weeks: 150 patients underwent catheter ablation, and 210 received drug treatment, with three patients dropping out. Although this division of the patients diverged from the randomized subgroups, the ablated and drug-treated patients showed no significant differences when compared for several clinical parameters.

 

 


Ablation was significantly more effective than drug therapy for cutting atrial fibrillation burden, which started at an average of about 50% in all patients at baseline. AF burden fell to an average of about 10%-15% among the ablated patients when measured at several time points during follow-up, whereas AF burden remained at an average of about 50% or higher among the drug-treated patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Mark S. Link
The analysis showed that, among patients who achieved an AF burden of 5% or less during the 1-year follow-up, the rate of freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure was 3.3 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 6%-80% and 2.5 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 81% or greater, both statistically significant between-group differences, Dr. Brachmann said.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that change in AF burden after ablation produced a statistically significant 0.66 area-under-the-curve for the primary endpoint, which suggested that reduction in AF burden post ablation could account for about two-thirds of the drop in deaths and hospitalizations for heart failure. Among the nonablated patients the area-under-the-curve was an insignificant 0.49 showing that with drug treatment AF burden had no discernible relationship with outcomes.



One further observation in the new analysis was that a drop in AF burden was linked with improved outcomes regardless of whether or not a “blanking period” was imposed on the data. Researchers applied a 90-day blanking period after ablation when assessing the treatment’s efficacy to censor from the analysis recurrences that occurred soon after ablation. The need for a blanking period during the first 90 days “was put to rest” by this new analysis, Dr. Brachmann said.

 

 


CASTLE-AF was sponsored by Biotronik. Dr. Brachmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Biotronik and several other companies. Dr. Krahn has been a consultant to Medtronic and has received research support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Link had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Brachmann J et al. Heart Rhythm 2018, Abstract B-LBCT02-04.
 

Body

 

This new analysis of data from the CASTLE-AF trial is exciting. It shows that, if we reduce the atrial fibrillation burden when we perform catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure, patients do better.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Until now, cardiac electrophysiologists who perform atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have been too hard on themselves by counting as a failure every patient who develops an AF recurrence that lasts for 30 seconds or more. We know that patients who have a substantial drop in their AF burden after catheter ablation report feeling better even if they continue to have some AF events. When their AF burden drops substantially, patients are better able to work and perform activities of daily life. Many options, including noninvasive devices, are now available to monitor patients’ postablation change in AF burden.

We currently tell patients the success rates of catheter ablation on AF based on recurrence rates. Maybe we need to change our definition of success to a cut in AF burden. Based on these new findings, patients don’t need to be perfect after ablation, with absolutely no recurrences. I have patients who are very happy with their outcome after ablation who still have episodes. The success rate of catheter ablation for treating AF may be much better than we have thought.

Andrea M. Russo, MD , is professor and director of the electrophysiology and arrhythmia service at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. She made these comments during a press conference and in a video interview. She had no relevant disclosures.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Body

 

This new analysis of data from the CASTLE-AF trial is exciting. It shows that, if we reduce the atrial fibrillation burden when we perform catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure, patients do better.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Until now, cardiac electrophysiologists who perform atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have been too hard on themselves by counting as a failure every patient who develops an AF recurrence that lasts for 30 seconds or more. We know that patients who have a substantial drop in their AF burden after catheter ablation report feeling better even if they continue to have some AF events. When their AF burden drops substantially, patients are better able to work and perform activities of daily life. Many options, including noninvasive devices, are now available to monitor patients’ postablation change in AF burden.

We currently tell patients the success rates of catheter ablation on AF based on recurrence rates. Maybe we need to change our definition of success to a cut in AF burden. Based on these new findings, patients don’t need to be perfect after ablation, with absolutely no recurrences. I have patients who are very happy with their outcome after ablation who still have episodes. The success rate of catheter ablation for treating AF may be much better than we have thought.

Andrea M. Russo, MD , is professor and director of the electrophysiology and arrhythmia service at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. She made these comments during a press conference and in a video interview. She had no relevant disclosures.

Body

 

This new analysis of data from the CASTLE-AF trial is exciting. It shows that, if we reduce the atrial fibrillation burden when we perform catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure, patients do better.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Until now, cardiac electrophysiologists who perform atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have been too hard on themselves by counting as a failure every patient who develops an AF recurrence that lasts for 30 seconds or more. We know that patients who have a substantial drop in their AF burden after catheter ablation report feeling better even if they continue to have some AF events. When their AF burden drops substantially, patients are better able to work and perform activities of daily life. Many options, including noninvasive devices, are now available to monitor patients’ postablation change in AF burden.

We currently tell patients the success rates of catheter ablation on AF based on recurrence rates. Maybe we need to change our definition of success to a cut in AF burden. Based on these new findings, patients don’t need to be perfect after ablation, with absolutely no recurrences. I have patients who are very happy with their outcome after ablation who still have episodes. The success rate of catheter ablation for treating AF may be much better than we have thought.

Andrea M. Russo, MD , is professor and director of the electrophysiology and arrhythmia service at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. She made these comments during a press conference and in a video interview. She had no relevant disclosures.

Title
AF ablation succeeds despite recurrences
AF ablation succeeds despite recurrences

 

– From the earliest days of using catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation (AF), in the 1990s, clinicians have defined ablation success based on whether patients had recurrence of their arrhythmia following treatment. New findings suggest that this standard was off, and that a much better measure of ablation’s success is the extent to which it cuts atrial fibrillation burden, the overall percentage of time a patient spends in the arrhythmic state.

The new study used data collected in the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) multicenter trial, which compared the efficacy of AF ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in patients with heart failure for improving survival and freedom from hospitalization for heart failure. The trial’s primary finding showed that, in 363 randomized patients, AF ablation cut the primary adverse event rate by 38% relative to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (New Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27)

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Johannes Brachmann
Post hoc analysis of the CASTLE-AF results has shown that patients whose AF burden was reduced to less than 6% after ablation experienced a 2.5- to 3.3-fold increased rate of freedom from adverse outcomes, compared with patients with posttreatment AF burdens of 6% or greater when investigators followed them for a year, Johannes Brachmann, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. In contrast, the incidence of AF recurrence following ablation had no statistically significant relationship with freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure, and the effects of antiarrhythmic drug treatment on both AF burden and AF recurrence had no significant relationship with CASTLE-AF’s primary outcome, said Dr. Brachmann, professor and chief of cardiology at the Coburg (Germany) Clinic.

“There have been concerns about the high recurrence rate of AF following ablation,” with reported cumulative recurrence rates running as high as 80% by 5 years after ablation, noted Dr. Brachmann. “The news now is that recurrence alone doesn’t make a difference; we can still help patients” by reducing their AF burden, although he cautioned that this relationship has so far only been seen in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the type of patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.

“This information is very informative for clinicians counseling patients who undergo ablation. Ablation may not eliminate all of a patient’s AF, but it will substantially reduce it, and that’s associated with better outcomes,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “Early on using ablation, we had a curative approach and used ablation to ‘clip the wire.’ Now we have growing, objective evidence for ‘debulking’ the problem” working without the need to completely eliminate all AF episodes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Andrew D. Krahn
The CASTLE-AF data “give tantalizing information into the question of whether you need to reduce AF or totally stop it to have a benefit in patients with heart failure,” commented Mark S. Link, MD, professor and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “There is plenty of evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs are of little benefit for HFrEF [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction] patients with AF. It’s a real stretch of these new findings to say these patients need to first fail treatment with at least one antiarrhythmic drug before they should be offered ablation.”

To run the post hoc analysis Dr. Brachmann and his associates categorized the 363 patients randomized in CASTLE-AF by the treatment they received during the study’s first 12 weeks: 150 patients underwent catheter ablation, and 210 received drug treatment, with three patients dropping out. Although this division of the patients diverged from the randomized subgroups, the ablated and drug-treated patients showed no significant differences when compared for several clinical parameters.

 

 


Ablation was significantly more effective than drug therapy for cutting atrial fibrillation burden, which started at an average of about 50% in all patients at baseline. AF burden fell to an average of about 10%-15% among the ablated patients when measured at several time points during follow-up, whereas AF burden remained at an average of about 50% or higher among the drug-treated patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Mark S. Link
The analysis showed that, among patients who achieved an AF burden of 5% or less during the 1-year follow-up, the rate of freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure was 3.3 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 6%-80% and 2.5 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 81% or greater, both statistically significant between-group differences, Dr. Brachmann said.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that change in AF burden after ablation produced a statistically significant 0.66 area-under-the-curve for the primary endpoint, which suggested that reduction in AF burden post ablation could account for about two-thirds of the drop in deaths and hospitalizations for heart failure. Among the nonablated patients the area-under-the-curve was an insignificant 0.49 showing that with drug treatment AF burden had no discernible relationship with outcomes.



One further observation in the new analysis was that a drop in AF burden was linked with improved outcomes regardless of whether or not a “blanking period” was imposed on the data. Researchers applied a 90-day blanking period after ablation when assessing the treatment’s efficacy to censor from the analysis recurrences that occurred soon after ablation. The need for a blanking period during the first 90 days “was put to rest” by this new analysis, Dr. Brachmann said.

 

 


CASTLE-AF was sponsored by Biotronik. Dr. Brachmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Biotronik and several other companies. Dr. Krahn has been a consultant to Medtronic and has received research support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Link had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Brachmann J et al. Heart Rhythm 2018, Abstract B-LBCT02-04.
 

 

– From the earliest days of using catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation (AF), in the 1990s, clinicians have defined ablation success based on whether patients had recurrence of their arrhythmia following treatment. New findings suggest that this standard was off, and that a much better measure of ablation’s success is the extent to which it cuts atrial fibrillation burden, the overall percentage of time a patient spends in the arrhythmic state.

The new study used data collected in the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) multicenter trial, which compared the efficacy of AF ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in patients with heart failure for improving survival and freedom from hospitalization for heart failure. The trial’s primary finding showed that, in 363 randomized patients, AF ablation cut the primary adverse event rate by 38% relative to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (New Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27)

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Johannes Brachmann
Post hoc analysis of the CASTLE-AF results has shown that patients whose AF burden was reduced to less than 6% after ablation experienced a 2.5- to 3.3-fold increased rate of freedom from adverse outcomes, compared with patients with posttreatment AF burdens of 6% or greater when investigators followed them for a year, Johannes Brachmann, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. In contrast, the incidence of AF recurrence following ablation had no statistically significant relationship with freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure, and the effects of antiarrhythmic drug treatment on both AF burden and AF recurrence had no significant relationship with CASTLE-AF’s primary outcome, said Dr. Brachmann, professor and chief of cardiology at the Coburg (Germany) Clinic.

“There have been concerns about the high recurrence rate of AF following ablation,” with reported cumulative recurrence rates running as high as 80% by 5 years after ablation, noted Dr. Brachmann. “The news now is that recurrence alone doesn’t make a difference; we can still help patients” by reducing their AF burden, although he cautioned that this relationship has so far only been seen in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the type of patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.

“This information is very informative for clinicians counseling patients who undergo ablation. Ablation may not eliminate all of a patient’s AF, but it will substantially reduce it, and that’s associated with better outcomes,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “Early on using ablation, we had a curative approach and used ablation to ‘clip the wire.’ Now we have growing, objective evidence for ‘debulking’ the problem” working without the need to completely eliminate all AF episodes.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Andrew D. Krahn
The CASTLE-AF data “give tantalizing information into the question of whether you need to reduce AF or totally stop it to have a benefit in patients with heart failure,” commented Mark S. Link, MD, professor and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “There is plenty of evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs are of little benefit for HFrEF [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction] patients with AF. It’s a real stretch of these new findings to say these patients need to first fail treatment with at least one antiarrhythmic drug before they should be offered ablation.”

To run the post hoc analysis Dr. Brachmann and his associates categorized the 363 patients randomized in CASTLE-AF by the treatment they received during the study’s first 12 weeks: 150 patients underwent catheter ablation, and 210 received drug treatment, with three patients dropping out. Although this division of the patients diverged from the randomized subgroups, the ablated and drug-treated patients showed no significant differences when compared for several clinical parameters.

 

 


Ablation was significantly more effective than drug therapy for cutting atrial fibrillation burden, which started at an average of about 50% in all patients at baseline. AF burden fell to an average of about 10%-15% among the ablated patients when measured at several time points during follow-up, whereas AF burden remained at an average of about 50% or higher among the drug-treated patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Mark S. Link
The analysis showed that, among patients who achieved an AF burden of 5% or less during the 1-year follow-up, the rate of freedom from death or hospitalization for heart failure was 3.3 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 6%-80% and 2.5 fold higher than it was in patients with an AF burden of 81% or greater, both statistically significant between-group differences, Dr. Brachmann said.

A receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that change in AF burden after ablation produced a statistically significant 0.66 area-under-the-curve for the primary endpoint, which suggested that reduction in AF burden post ablation could account for about two-thirds of the drop in deaths and hospitalizations for heart failure. Among the nonablated patients the area-under-the-curve was an insignificant 0.49 showing that with drug treatment AF burden had no discernible relationship with outcomes.



One further observation in the new analysis was that a drop in AF burden was linked with improved outcomes regardless of whether or not a “blanking period” was imposed on the data. Researchers applied a 90-day blanking period after ablation when assessing the treatment’s efficacy to censor from the analysis recurrences that occurred soon after ablation. The need for a blanking period during the first 90 days “was put to rest” by this new analysis, Dr. Brachmann said.

 

 


CASTLE-AF was sponsored by Biotronik. Dr. Brachmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Biotronik and several other companies. Dr. Krahn has been a consultant to Medtronic and has received research support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Link had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Brachmann J et al. Heart Rhythm 2018, Abstract B-LBCT02-04.
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM HEART RHYTHM 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Higher atrial fibrillation (AF) burden was more important than AF recurrence for predicting bad outcomes post ablation.

Major finding: Patients whose AF burden fell to 5% or less had about a threefold higher rate of good outcomes, compared with other patients.

Study details: Post hoc analysis of 360 patients with heart failure and AF enrolled in CASTLE-AF, a multicenter, randomized trial.

Disclosures: CASTLE-AF was sponsored by Biotronik. Dr. Brachmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Biotronik and several other companies. Dr. Krahn has been a consultant to Medtronic and has received research support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Link had no disclosures.

Source: Brachmann J et al. Heart Rhythm 2018, Abstract B-LBCT02-04.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

VIDEO: The effect of removing pregnancy drug category labeling

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 08/18/2021 - 13:58

AUSTIN, TEX. – In a randomized survey, the Food and Drug Administration’s previous letter-category labeling of drugs for pregnant women made prescribers more likely to prescribe appropriate medication than the new labeling standards without the letters.


The FDA removed the letter categories A, B, C, D, and X in 2014 in the belief “that a narrative structure for pregnancy labeling is best able to capture and convey the potential risks of drug exposure based on animal or human data, or both,” as stated in the FDA ruling.

“The [old] FDA categories are actually based upon the evidence related to clinical trials or animal trials and known risks to the fetus or the mother. The categorizations really reflect the evidence that we have or the absence of evidence as to whether medications can be safely used during pregnancy,” Dr. Robinson explained in a video interview. But letters can be perceived as overall “grades,” even though they aren’t.

The researchers sought to evaluate the effect of the letters’ removal by surveying doctors at two centers in New York City and two annual specialty meetings from October 2015 to May 2016.

The survey “included demographic information, followed by four clinical vignettes. Each vignette described a pregnant woman and presented an indication for prescribing a particular drug which was FDA approved. Each vignette was followed by detailed drug information as found in the FDA-approved package insert with the new [Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule] content and formatting,” Dr. Robinson said at the meeting.

 

 


The 162 survey respondents estimated their likelihood of prescribing given the information in the vignette. The respondents were randomized to see the letter category or not. Category X (positive evidence of risk that clearly outweighs potential benefits) was not included. For all four remaining categories, the respondents who were shown the letter category were more likely to prescribe. Category B was significantly affected in a mixed linear model, and both categories B and C were significantly affected in a multivariate model.

“The new system of revised labeling may be more ambiguous and present new challenges for clinical decision making that could result in decreased access to medications for pregnant women,” Dr. Robinson said.

Dr. Robinson and her coauthors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract OP5.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

AUSTIN, TEX. – In a randomized survey, the Food and Drug Administration’s previous letter-category labeling of drugs for pregnant women made prescribers more likely to prescribe appropriate medication than the new labeling standards without the letters.


The FDA removed the letter categories A, B, C, D, and X in 2014 in the belief “that a narrative structure for pregnancy labeling is best able to capture and convey the potential risks of drug exposure based on animal or human data, or both,” as stated in the FDA ruling.

“The [old] FDA categories are actually based upon the evidence related to clinical trials or animal trials and known risks to the fetus or the mother. The categorizations really reflect the evidence that we have or the absence of evidence as to whether medications can be safely used during pregnancy,” Dr. Robinson explained in a video interview. But letters can be perceived as overall “grades,” even though they aren’t.

The researchers sought to evaluate the effect of the letters’ removal by surveying doctors at two centers in New York City and two annual specialty meetings from October 2015 to May 2016.

The survey “included demographic information, followed by four clinical vignettes. Each vignette described a pregnant woman and presented an indication for prescribing a particular drug which was FDA approved. Each vignette was followed by detailed drug information as found in the FDA-approved package insert with the new [Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule] content and formatting,” Dr. Robinson said at the meeting.

 

 


The 162 survey respondents estimated their likelihood of prescribing given the information in the vignette. The respondents were randomized to see the letter category or not. Category X (positive evidence of risk that clearly outweighs potential benefits) was not included. For all four remaining categories, the respondents who were shown the letter category were more likely to prescribe. Category B was significantly affected in a mixed linear model, and both categories B and C were significantly affected in a multivariate model.

“The new system of revised labeling may be more ambiguous and present new challenges for clinical decision making that could result in decreased access to medications for pregnant women,” Dr. Robinson said.

Dr. Robinson and her coauthors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract OP5.

AUSTIN, TEX. – In a randomized survey, the Food and Drug Administration’s previous letter-category labeling of drugs for pregnant women made prescribers more likely to prescribe appropriate medication than the new labeling standards without the letters.


The FDA removed the letter categories A, B, C, D, and X in 2014 in the belief “that a narrative structure for pregnancy labeling is best able to capture and convey the potential risks of drug exposure based on animal or human data, or both,” as stated in the FDA ruling.

“The [old] FDA categories are actually based upon the evidence related to clinical trials or animal trials and known risks to the fetus or the mother. The categorizations really reflect the evidence that we have or the absence of evidence as to whether medications can be safely used during pregnancy,” Dr. Robinson explained in a video interview. But letters can be perceived as overall “grades,” even though they aren’t.

The researchers sought to evaluate the effect of the letters’ removal by surveying doctors at two centers in New York City and two annual specialty meetings from October 2015 to May 2016.

The survey “included demographic information, followed by four clinical vignettes. Each vignette described a pregnant woman and presented an indication for prescribing a particular drug which was FDA approved. Each vignette was followed by detailed drug information as found in the FDA-approved package insert with the new [Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule] content and formatting,” Dr. Robinson said at the meeting.

 

 


The 162 survey respondents estimated their likelihood of prescribing given the information in the vignette. The respondents were randomized to see the letter category or not. Category X (positive evidence of risk that clearly outweighs potential benefits) was not included. For all four remaining categories, the respondents who were shown the letter category were more likely to prescribe. Category B was significantly affected in a mixed linear model, and both categories B and C were significantly affected in a multivariate model.

“The new system of revised labeling may be more ambiguous and present new challenges for clinical decision making that could result in decreased access to medications for pregnant women,” Dr. Robinson said.

Dr. Robinson and her coauthors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract OP5.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACOG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

VIDEO: Promoting upright and mobile labor could save over $700 million yearly

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 01/26/2021 - 16:25

– Encouraging an upright position and allowing mobility during labor is a cost-effective intervention that could save hundreds of millions of dollars while preventing cesarean deliveries, uterine rupture, and maternal deaths, according to a recent cost-effectiveness study.

Alyssa Hersh, a medical student at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, developed the analysis using an innovative model that examines the costs associated not just with the first delivery, but also the probable next delivery.

“Our model was dependent on the ability to reduce cesareans and also reduce labor times,” said Ms. Hersh in a video interview. “So this reduction in cesareans allowed women to avoid having an increased risk of uterine rupture, of emergent hysterectomy, and other downstream consequences.”

The “two-delivery model” takes into account the average number of births per woman in the United States, “such that the risks, benefits, and costs are framed within the public health perspective of the average U.S. childrearing woman’s entire reproductive course,” she and her coauthors wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This model captures the downstream effects of a first cesarean delivery on the next delivery, for example, providing a more realistic picture of the true costs of cesarean delivery for a nulliparous female.

Some of the known benefits of being upright and mobile during labor, Ms. Hersh said, include shortened labor and reduced risk for cesarean delivery. Cost-effectiveness of this approach for low-risk women, she said, had not been fully explored.

For the analysis, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, approximating the number of nulliparous term deliveries in the United States each year. They used rates of cesarean delivery for women laboring in upright and recumbent positions that were drawn from the literature, but lower than national averages: 7.8% of recumbent women and 5.4% of upright women went on to cesarean delivery in the model used by the investigators.

The outcomes tracked in the analysis included cesarean delivery, uterine rupture, hysterectomy attributed to uterine rupture, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All of the outcomes were tracked for the index pregnancy and the second pregnancy.

 

 


Ms. Hersh and her coinvestigators found that in the theoretical cohort, “laboring upright led to 64,890 fewer cesarean deliveries, 15 fewer maternal deaths, 113 fewer uterine ruptures, and 30 fewer hysterectomies.”

These reductions were associated with a savings for this cohort of $785 million, and an increase in QALYs of 2,142.

Using Monte Carlo simulation techniques to ascertain the effect of varying cesarean rates and other components of the model, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues found that the model remained cost-effective even with variation in all of the inputs.

“Laboring upright is a no-cost intervention that leads to improved outcomes, decreased costs, and increased QALYs during a woman’s first and second deliveries,” wrote Ms. Hersh and her associates. “This model argues for increasing systems factors that support women to be upright and mobile during labor, and in doing so, promoting improved health for our patients.”

Said Ms. Hersh, “This is an easy way for hospitals to adopt policies that can enable women to have improved outcomes.”

Ms. Hersh and her colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hersh A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 34C.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– Encouraging an upright position and allowing mobility during labor is a cost-effective intervention that could save hundreds of millions of dollars while preventing cesarean deliveries, uterine rupture, and maternal deaths, according to a recent cost-effectiveness study.

Alyssa Hersh, a medical student at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, developed the analysis using an innovative model that examines the costs associated not just with the first delivery, but also the probable next delivery.

“Our model was dependent on the ability to reduce cesareans and also reduce labor times,” said Ms. Hersh in a video interview. “So this reduction in cesareans allowed women to avoid having an increased risk of uterine rupture, of emergent hysterectomy, and other downstream consequences.”

The “two-delivery model” takes into account the average number of births per woman in the United States, “such that the risks, benefits, and costs are framed within the public health perspective of the average U.S. childrearing woman’s entire reproductive course,” she and her coauthors wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This model captures the downstream effects of a first cesarean delivery on the next delivery, for example, providing a more realistic picture of the true costs of cesarean delivery for a nulliparous female.

Some of the known benefits of being upright and mobile during labor, Ms. Hersh said, include shortened labor and reduced risk for cesarean delivery. Cost-effectiveness of this approach for low-risk women, she said, had not been fully explored.

For the analysis, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, approximating the number of nulliparous term deliveries in the United States each year. They used rates of cesarean delivery for women laboring in upright and recumbent positions that were drawn from the literature, but lower than national averages: 7.8% of recumbent women and 5.4% of upright women went on to cesarean delivery in the model used by the investigators.

The outcomes tracked in the analysis included cesarean delivery, uterine rupture, hysterectomy attributed to uterine rupture, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All of the outcomes were tracked for the index pregnancy and the second pregnancy.

 

 


Ms. Hersh and her coinvestigators found that in the theoretical cohort, “laboring upright led to 64,890 fewer cesarean deliveries, 15 fewer maternal deaths, 113 fewer uterine ruptures, and 30 fewer hysterectomies.”

These reductions were associated with a savings for this cohort of $785 million, and an increase in QALYs of 2,142.

Using Monte Carlo simulation techniques to ascertain the effect of varying cesarean rates and other components of the model, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues found that the model remained cost-effective even with variation in all of the inputs.

“Laboring upright is a no-cost intervention that leads to improved outcomes, decreased costs, and increased QALYs during a woman’s first and second deliveries,” wrote Ms. Hersh and her associates. “This model argues for increasing systems factors that support women to be upright and mobile during labor, and in doing so, promoting improved health for our patients.”

Said Ms. Hersh, “This is an easy way for hospitals to adopt policies that can enable women to have improved outcomes.”

Ms. Hersh and her colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hersh A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 34C.

– Encouraging an upright position and allowing mobility during labor is a cost-effective intervention that could save hundreds of millions of dollars while preventing cesarean deliveries, uterine rupture, and maternal deaths, according to a recent cost-effectiveness study.

Alyssa Hersh, a medical student at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, developed the analysis using an innovative model that examines the costs associated not just with the first delivery, but also the probable next delivery.

“Our model was dependent on the ability to reduce cesareans and also reduce labor times,” said Ms. Hersh in a video interview. “So this reduction in cesareans allowed women to avoid having an increased risk of uterine rupture, of emergent hysterectomy, and other downstream consequences.”

The “two-delivery model” takes into account the average number of births per woman in the United States, “such that the risks, benefits, and costs are framed within the public health perspective of the average U.S. childrearing woman’s entire reproductive course,” she and her coauthors wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This model captures the downstream effects of a first cesarean delivery on the next delivery, for example, providing a more realistic picture of the true costs of cesarean delivery for a nulliparous female.

Some of the known benefits of being upright and mobile during labor, Ms. Hersh said, include shortened labor and reduced risk for cesarean delivery. Cost-effectiveness of this approach for low-risk women, she said, had not been fully explored.

For the analysis, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, approximating the number of nulliparous term deliveries in the United States each year. They used rates of cesarean delivery for women laboring in upright and recumbent positions that were drawn from the literature, but lower than national averages: 7.8% of recumbent women and 5.4% of upright women went on to cesarean delivery in the model used by the investigators.

The outcomes tracked in the analysis included cesarean delivery, uterine rupture, hysterectomy attributed to uterine rupture, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All of the outcomes were tracked for the index pregnancy and the second pregnancy.

 

 


Ms. Hersh and her coinvestigators found that in the theoretical cohort, “laboring upright led to 64,890 fewer cesarean deliveries, 15 fewer maternal deaths, 113 fewer uterine ruptures, and 30 fewer hysterectomies.”

These reductions were associated with a savings for this cohort of $785 million, and an increase in QALYs of 2,142.

Using Monte Carlo simulation techniques to ascertain the effect of varying cesarean rates and other components of the model, Ms. Hersh and her colleagues found that the model remained cost-effective even with variation in all of the inputs.

“Laboring upright is a no-cost intervention that leads to improved outcomes, decreased costs, and increased QALYs during a woman’s first and second deliveries,” wrote Ms. Hersh and her associates. “This model argues for increasing systems factors that support women to be upright and mobile during labor, and in doing so, promoting improved health for our patients.”

Said Ms. Hersh, “This is an easy way for hospitals to adopt policies that can enable women to have improved outcomes.”

Ms. Hersh and her colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Hersh A et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 34C.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACOG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article

Is deceleration area on fetal heart rate monitoring predictive of fetal acidemia?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/04/2021 - 16:14
Display Headline
Is deceleration area on fetal heart rate monitoring predictive of fetal acidemia?
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Repke is Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this video.

Publications
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Repke is Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this video.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Repke is Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this video.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Is deceleration area on fetal heart rate monitoring predictive of fetal acidemia?
Display Headline
Is deceleration area on fetal heart rate monitoring predictive of fetal acidemia?
Inside the Article

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PRACTICE?

  • Electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is a poor screening test but its positive and negative predictive value may be improved by the criteria used in this study
  • The authors found that >10 min of Category 3 tracings prior to delivery was associated with fetal acidemia
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 14:00
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 14:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 14:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article

VIDEO: Addressing the opioid epidemic: Psychiatrists are poised to lead

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/06/2021 - 10:22

– Psychiatrists are uniquely equipped to take the lead in providing cost-effective, evidence-based addiction treatment services, according to Lama Bazzi, MD, and Elie Aoun, MD.

As cochairs of a session titled, “Psychiatrists at the Helm of the Opioid Epidemic” at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun addressed how psychiatrists can take the lead as part of multidisciplinary teams, as well as roles they can play in policy and the criminal justice system to “shift the paradigm in terms of how the general public thinks about addiction.”

They also discussed existing models and some new models they have been working on to address the problem.

“We want to empower psychiatrists to feel that they already have the knowledge base to do what needs to be done, and to just ... put out there different ways that we can brainstorm together to do that,” Dr. Bazzi of Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in a video interview at the meeting.



She and Dr. Aoun also discussed an ongoing project that involves input from law enforcement and support from the APA; an online training module is being developed to address different mental disorders – including substance use disorders – and other issues that officers face, such as racial biases and disparities.

“The curriculum that we’re working on is going to be symptom based,” said Dr. Aoun, of Columbia University, New York, explaining that this approach is more practical for helping law enforcement officers in dealing with issues involving individuals with mental disorders.

Another project focuses on keeping people with mental disorders out of the criminal justice system, he said.

 

 


“Every step [of the criminal justice process] is an opportunity to intercept people with mental illness and provide them with intervention,” he said, noting that an adaptation of the model for patients with addictions is also in the works.

He and Dr. Bazzi also focused on where psychiatrists, as experts in both mental health and addiction, can fit into the process.

Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun reported having no disclosures.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– Psychiatrists are uniquely equipped to take the lead in providing cost-effective, evidence-based addiction treatment services, according to Lama Bazzi, MD, and Elie Aoun, MD.

As cochairs of a session titled, “Psychiatrists at the Helm of the Opioid Epidemic” at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun addressed how psychiatrists can take the lead as part of multidisciplinary teams, as well as roles they can play in policy and the criminal justice system to “shift the paradigm in terms of how the general public thinks about addiction.”

They also discussed existing models and some new models they have been working on to address the problem.

“We want to empower psychiatrists to feel that they already have the knowledge base to do what needs to be done, and to just ... put out there different ways that we can brainstorm together to do that,” Dr. Bazzi of Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in a video interview at the meeting.



She and Dr. Aoun also discussed an ongoing project that involves input from law enforcement and support from the APA; an online training module is being developed to address different mental disorders – including substance use disorders – and other issues that officers face, such as racial biases and disparities.

“The curriculum that we’re working on is going to be symptom based,” said Dr. Aoun, of Columbia University, New York, explaining that this approach is more practical for helping law enforcement officers in dealing with issues involving individuals with mental disorders.

Another project focuses on keeping people with mental disorders out of the criminal justice system, he said.

 

 


“Every step [of the criminal justice process] is an opportunity to intercept people with mental illness and provide them with intervention,” he said, noting that an adaptation of the model for patients with addictions is also in the works.

He and Dr. Bazzi also focused on where psychiatrists, as experts in both mental health and addiction, can fit into the process.

Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun reported having no disclosures.

– Psychiatrists are uniquely equipped to take the lead in providing cost-effective, evidence-based addiction treatment services, according to Lama Bazzi, MD, and Elie Aoun, MD.

As cochairs of a session titled, “Psychiatrists at the Helm of the Opioid Epidemic” at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun addressed how psychiatrists can take the lead as part of multidisciplinary teams, as well as roles they can play in policy and the criminal justice system to “shift the paradigm in terms of how the general public thinks about addiction.”

They also discussed existing models and some new models they have been working on to address the problem.

“We want to empower psychiatrists to feel that they already have the knowledge base to do what needs to be done, and to just ... put out there different ways that we can brainstorm together to do that,” Dr. Bazzi of Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, N.Y., said in a video interview at the meeting.



She and Dr. Aoun also discussed an ongoing project that involves input from law enforcement and support from the APA; an online training module is being developed to address different mental disorders – including substance use disorders – and other issues that officers face, such as racial biases and disparities.

“The curriculum that we’re working on is going to be symptom based,” said Dr. Aoun, of Columbia University, New York, explaining that this approach is more practical for helping law enforcement officers in dealing with issues involving individuals with mental disorders.

Another project focuses on keeping people with mental disorders out of the criminal justice system, he said.

 

 


“Every step [of the criminal justice process] is an opportunity to intercept people with mental illness and provide them with intervention,” he said, noting that an adaptation of the model for patients with addictions is also in the works.

He and Dr. Bazzi also focused on where psychiatrists, as experts in both mental health and addiction, can fit into the process.

Dr. Bazzi and Dr. Aoun reported having no disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM APA

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article

VIDEO: Few ob.gyns. asking in detail about sexual behavior

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:38

 

– Patients in an urban practice were comfortable discussing sexual practices, even less traditional behaviors such as use of sex toys and “hook-up” apps, with their providers, according to results of a recent survey. The survey also found that ob.gyns. often weren’t asking about sexual behaviors at all.

“We wanted to find out what sexual behaviors our patients were participating in, and if their providers were asking them about those behaviors,” said Casuarina Hart, MD, chief ob.gyn. resident at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The survey also sought to determine whether patients were comfortable with being asked detailed questions about their sexual behavior, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A total of 207 anonymous paper-and-pencil surveys were completed by patients who attended Mount Sinai ob.gyn. clinics, as well as private practices where ob.gyns. had Mount Sinai affiliations. “Our patients were very diverse,” Dr. Hart said in a video interview. About a quarter were white, a quarter were African American, and one-third were Hispanic. The average age of respondents was 33 years.

Dr. Hart's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

In addition to asking about participation in vaginal, oral, and anal sex, Dr. Hart and her coauthors asked about “more interesting sexual behaviors, from the use of sex toys to different ‘hook-up’ apps,” she said.

Among this group of urban respondents, participation in vaginal and oral sex was about at the national average. Anal sex participation, though, was 6%-8% higher than the national average, said Dr. Hart. This difference is important, she said, because there is “different screening and counseling for those patients.”

When Dr. Hart and her colleagues looked at the next phase of the survey, they found that fewer than half of patients said that providers were asking about sexual behaviors – and only about half were asking about condom use. When it came to being asked about participation in anal sex and oral sex, about one in five patients reported that their providers had broached the topics.

 

 


The investigators found that age had little to do with reported participation in sexual behaviors – with two exceptions. Patients who reported using sex toys were, on average, older than were those who never used them (34.3 vs. 30.7 years, P = .01). Conversely, those who used ‘hook-up’ apps were younger than were never-users (28.3 vs. 33.7 years, P = .0002).

“I found that less than 60% of my patients were regularly using condoms, and less than 50% of patients were ever asked by their provider about condom use. That was the most shocking finding that I had,” said Dr. Hart.

“The biggest thing is, patients are comfortable,” said Dr. Hart. “Around 90% of patients are comfortable discussing anything from sex toys, vaginal sex, to anal sex – but providers aren’t asking about them. And they really should,” to optimize screening for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer, and to provide thorough counseling about safe sex practices, she said.

What about the physician perspective? Maria Kon, MD, a Mount Sinai ob.gyn., and her collaborators received responses to a survey from 90 physicians, finding that most did not routinely ask about sexual orientation, sexual problems, or satisfaction. Further, one in four respondents reported disapproving of their patients’ sexual practices.
 

 


Asking about sexual practices is important not just in the context of reproductive health and disease prevention, but also to the “well-being of a woman in general, which is very important if you want to be a good doctor,” Dr. Kon said in a video interview.

Dr. Kon's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Links to the online survey were sent to ob.gyn. residents, fellows, and attending physicians in New York. Three-quarters of respondents were female, and almost half (46%) were aged 25-30 years; 59% were in postgraduate year 1-4. Most were white (69%) and heterosexual (87%).

“Years of training improve the level of comfort” in discussing specific sexual practices, Dr. Kon and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying their presentation at the meeting. “What we found, actually, is that people who are in practice longer were more comfortable talking about certain topics, but not all of them,” said Dr. Kon.

The investigators found that respondents who were in their 5th postgraduate year and beyond were significantly more comfortable discussing sex with elderly patients, talking about masturbation and sex toys, and talking about dyspareunia or libido problems (P value for being either “comfortable” or “very comfortable,” .0104, .0422, and .003, respectively). On the other hand, experience didn’t make a difference in the level of comfort with addressing a transgender person.

 

 


“Gender has no effect on the level of comfort,” the investigators wrote. They found no significant differences in any of these domains between male and female respondents.

The survey also asked ob.gyns. whether they would like more education about sexual behavior, and the answer was “yes.” About four in five respondents wanted to know more about the topics raised in the survey, which also asked about comfort in talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. About the same number think that their sexual history taking could be more detailed.

In terms of how ob.gyns. responding to the survey would like to receive more information and education, almost all (94%) said they would appreciate receiving more formal lectures about sexual practices. One third said they would like to educate themselves about trends in sexual behavior.

“Based on the survey responses, it seems that people would prefer for official lectures to be included in the curriculum,” said Dr. Kon, noting that required medical school sexual education is currently brief, with a focus on pregnancy and disease prevention and abortion. “In residency, we really don’t have much education either,” she said, adding that more formal education, as in grand rounds, “would highly benefit us as doctors who can relate to patients, who are comfortable talking to women about their health and well-being.”

Dr. Kon and Dr. Hart reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hart C et al. and Kon M et al. ACOG 2018. Abstracts 26Q and 11M.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Patients in an urban practice were comfortable discussing sexual practices, even less traditional behaviors such as use of sex toys and “hook-up” apps, with their providers, according to results of a recent survey. The survey also found that ob.gyns. often weren’t asking about sexual behaviors at all.

“We wanted to find out what sexual behaviors our patients were participating in, and if their providers were asking them about those behaviors,” said Casuarina Hart, MD, chief ob.gyn. resident at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The survey also sought to determine whether patients were comfortable with being asked detailed questions about their sexual behavior, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A total of 207 anonymous paper-and-pencil surveys were completed by patients who attended Mount Sinai ob.gyn. clinics, as well as private practices where ob.gyns. had Mount Sinai affiliations. “Our patients were very diverse,” Dr. Hart said in a video interview. About a quarter were white, a quarter were African American, and one-third were Hispanic. The average age of respondents was 33 years.

Dr. Hart's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

In addition to asking about participation in vaginal, oral, and anal sex, Dr. Hart and her coauthors asked about “more interesting sexual behaviors, from the use of sex toys to different ‘hook-up’ apps,” she said.

Among this group of urban respondents, participation in vaginal and oral sex was about at the national average. Anal sex participation, though, was 6%-8% higher than the national average, said Dr. Hart. This difference is important, she said, because there is “different screening and counseling for those patients.”

When Dr. Hart and her colleagues looked at the next phase of the survey, they found that fewer than half of patients said that providers were asking about sexual behaviors – and only about half were asking about condom use. When it came to being asked about participation in anal sex and oral sex, about one in five patients reported that their providers had broached the topics.

 

 


The investigators found that age had little to do with reported participation in sexual behaviors – with two exceptions. Patients who reported using sex toys were, on average, older than were those who never used them (34.3 vs. 30.7 years, P = .01). Conversely, those who used ‘hook-up’ apps were younger than were never-users (28.3 vs. 33.7 years, P = .0002).

“I found that less than 60% of my patients were regularly using condoms, and less than 50% of patients were ever asked by their provider about condom use. That was the most shocking finding that I had,” said Dr. Hart.

“The biggest thing is, patients are comfortable,” said Dr. Hart. “Around 90% of patients are comfortable discussing anything from sex toys, vaginal sex, to anal sex – but providers aren’t asking about them. And they really should,” to optimize screening for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer, and to provide thorough counseling about safe sex practices, she said.

What about the physician perspective? Maria Kon, MD, a Mount Sinai ob.gyn., and her collaborators received responses to a survey from 90 physicians, finding that most did not routinely ask about sexual orientation, sexual problems, or satisfaction. Further, one in four respondents reported disapproving of their patients’ sexual practices.
 

 


Asking about sexual practices is important not just in the context of reproductive health and disease prevention, but also to the “well-being of a woman in general, which is very important if you want to be a good doctor,” Dr. Kon said in a video interview.

Dr. Kon's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Links to the online survey were sent to ob.gyn. residents, fellows, and attending physicians in New York. Three-quarters of respondents were female, and almost half (46%) were aged 25-30 years; 59% were in postgraduate year 1-4. Most were white (69%) and heterosexual (87%).

“Years of training improve the level of comfort” in discussing specific sexual practices, Dr. Kon and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying their presentation at the meeting. “What we found, actually, is that people who are in practice longer were more comfortable talking about certain topics, but not all of them,” said Dr. Kon.

The investigators found that respondents who were in their 5th postgraduate year and beyond were significantly more comfortable discussing sex with elderly patients, talking about masturbation and sex toys, and talking about dyspareunia or libido problems (P value for being either “comfortable” or “very comfortable,” .0104, .0422, and .003, respectively). On the other hand, experience didn’t make a difference in the level of comfort with addressing a transgender person.

 

 


“Gender has no effect on the level of comfort,” the investigators wrote. They found no significant differences in any of these domains between male and female respondents.

The survey also asked ob.gyns. whether they would like more education about sexual behavior, and the answer was “yes.” About four in five respondents wanted to know more about the topics raised in the survey, which also asked about comfort in talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. About the same number think that their sexual history taking could be more detailed.

In terms of how ob.gyns. responding to the survey would like to receive more information and education, almost all (94%) said they would appreciate receiving more formal lectures about sexual practices. One third said they would like to educate themselves about trends in sexual behavior.

“Based on the survey responses, it seems that people would prefer for official lectures to be included in the curriculum,” said Dr. Kon, noting that required medical school sexual education is currently brief, with a focus on pregnancy and disease prevention and abortion. “In residency, we really don’t have much education either,” she said, adding that more formal education, as in grand rounds, “would highly benefit us as doctors who can relate to patients, who are comfortable talking to women about their health and well-being.”

Dr. Kon and Dr. Hart reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hart C et al. and Kon M et al. ACOG 2018. Abstracts 26Q and 11M.

 

– Patients in an urban practice were comfortable discussing sexual practices, even less traditional behaviors such as use of sex toys and “hook-up” apps, with their providers, according to results of a recent survey. The survey also found that ob.gyns. often weren’t asking about sexual behaviors at all.

“We wanted to find out what sexual behaviors our patients were participating in, and if their providers were asking them about those behaviors,” said Casuarina Hart, MD, chief ob.gyn. resident at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The survey also sought to determine whether patients were comfortable with being asked detailed questions about their sexual behavior, she said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A total of 207 anonymous paper-and-pencil surveys were completed by patients who attended Mount Sinai ob.gyn. clinics, as well as private practices where ob.gyns. had Mount Sinai affiliations. “Our patients were very diverse,” Dr. Hart said in a video interview. About a quarter were white, a quarter were African American, and one-third were Hispanic. The average age of respondents was 33 years.

Dr. Hart's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

In addition to asking about participation in vaginal, oral, and anal sex, Dr. Hart and her coauthors asked about “more interesting sexual behaviors, from the use of sex toys to different ‘hook-up’ apps,” she said.

Among this group of urban respondents, participation in vaginal and oral sex was about at the national average. Anal sex participation, though, was 6%-8% higher than the national average, said Dr. Hart. This difference is important, she said, because there is “different screening and counseling for those patients.”

When Dr. Hart and her colleagues looked at the next phase of the survey, they found that fewer than half of patients said that providers were asking about sexual behaviors – and only about half were asking about condom use. When it came to being asked about participation in anal sex and oral sex, about one in five patients reported that their providers had broached the topics.

 

 


The investigators found that age had little to do with reported participation in sexual behaviors – with two exceptions. Patients who reported using sex toys were, on average, older than were those who never used them (34.3 vs. 30.7 years, P = .01). Conversely, those who used ‘hook-up’ apps were younger than were never-users (28.3 vs. 33.7 years, P = .0002).

“I found that less than 60% of my patients were regularly using condoms, and less than 50% of patients were ever asked by their provider about condom use. That was the most shocking finding that I had,” said Dr. Hart.

“The biggest thing is, patients are comfortable,” said Dr. Hart. “Around 90% of patients are comfortable discussing anything from sex toys, vaginal sex, to anal sex – but providers aren’t asking about them. And they really should,” to optimize screening for sexually transmitted diseases and cancer, and to provide thorough counseling about safe sex practices, she said.

What about the physician perspective? Maria Kon, MD, a Mount Sinai ob.gyn., and her collaborators received responses to a survey from 90 physicians, finding that most did not routinely ask about sexual orientation, sexual problems, or satisfaction. Further, one in four respondents reported disapproving of their patients’ sexual practices.
 

 


Asking about sexual practices is important not just in the context of reproductive health and disease prevention, but also to the “well-being of a woman in general, which is very important if you want to be a good doctor,” Dr. Kon said in a video interview.

Dr. Kon's interview:

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Links to the online survey were sent to ob.gyn. residents, fellows, and attending physicians in New York. Three-quarters of respondents were female, and almost half (46%) were aged 25-30 years; 59% were in postgraduate year 1-4. Most were white (69%) and heterosexual (87%).

“Years of training improve the level of comfort” in discussing specific sexual practices, Dr. Kon and her colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying their presentation at the meeting. “What we found, actually, is that people who are in practice longer were more comfortable talking about certain topics, but not all of them,” said Dr. Kon.

The investigators found that respondents who were in their 5th postgraduate year and beyond were significantly more comfortable discussing sex with elderly patients, talking about masturbation and sex toys, and talking about dyspareunia or libido problems (P value for being either “comfortable” or “very comfortable,” .0104, .0422, and .003, respectively). On the other hand, experience didn’t make a difference in the level of comfort with addressing a transgender person.

 

 


“Gender has no effect on the level of comfort,” the investigators wrote. They found no significant differences in any of these domains between male and female respondents.

The survey also asked ob.gyns. whether they would like more education about sexual behavior, and the answer was “yes.” About four in five respondents wanted to know more about the topics raised in the survey, which also asked about comfort in talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. About the same number think that their sexual history taking could be more detailed.

In terms of how ob.gyns. responding to the survey would like to receive more information and education, almost all (94%) said they would appreciate receiving more formal lectures about sexual practices. One third said they would like to educate themselves about trends in sexual behavior.

“Based on the survey responses, it seems that people would prefer for official lectures to be included in the curriculum,” said Dr. Kon, noting that required medical school sexual education is currently brief, with a focus on pregnancy and disease prevention and abortion. “In residency, we really don’t have much education either,” she said, adding that more formal education, as in grand rounds, “would highly benefit us as doctors who can relate to patients, who are comfortable talking to women about their health and well-being.”

Dr. Kon and Dr. Hart reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hart C et al. and Kon M et al. ACOG 2018. Abstracts 26Q and 11M.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACOG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

VIDEO: Anemia more than doubles risk of postpartum depression

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:38

 

– The risk of depression was more than doubled in women who were anemic during pregnancy, according to a recent retrospective cohort study of nearly 1,000 women. Among patients who had anemia at any point, the relative risk of screening positive for postpartum depression was 2.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-4.16).

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

“This was an unexpected finding,” said Shannon Sutherland, MD, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, in an interview after she presented the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Maternal suicide exceeds hemorrhage and hypertensive disease as a cause of U.S. maternal mortality,” wrote Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators in the poster accompanying the presentation. And anemia is common: “Anemia in pregnancy can be as high as 27.4% in low-income minority pregnant women in the third trimester,” they wrote.

“If we can find something like this that affects depression, and screen for it and correct for it, we can make a real big difference in patients’ lives,” said Dr. Sutherland in a video interview. “Screening for anemia ... is such a simple thing for us to do, and I also think it’s very easy for us to correct, and very cheap for us to correct.”

The 922 study participants were at least 16 years old and receiving postpartum care at an outpatient women’s health clinic. Patients who had diseases that disrupted iron metabolism or were tobacco users, and those on antidepressants, anxiolytics, or antipsychotics were excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria included anemia that required transfusion, and intrauterine fetal demise or neonatal mortality.

To assess depression, Dr. Sutherland and her colleagues administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at routine postpartum visits. Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators calculated the numbers of respondents who fell above and below the cutoff for potential depression on the 10-item self-report scale. They then looked at the proportion of women who scored positive for depression among those who were, and those who were not, anemic.

Possible depression was indicated by depression scale scores of 9.2% of participants, while three quarters (75.2%) were anemic either during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period. Among anemic patients, 10.8% screened positive for depression, while 4.8% of those without anemia met positive screening criteria for postpartum depression (P = .007).

 

 


Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators noted that fewer women in their cohort had postpartum depression than the national average of 19%. They may have missed some patients who would later develop depression since the screening occurred at the first postpartum visit; also, “it is possible that women deeply affected by [postpartum depression] may have been lost to follow-up,” they wrote.

Participants had a mean age of about 26 years, and body mass index was slightly higher for those with anemia than without (mean, 32.2 vs 31.2 kg/m2; P = .025).

Postpartum depression was not associated with marital status, substance use, ethnicity, parity, or the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage, in the investigators’ analysis.

Dr. Sutherland said that, in their analysis, she and her coinvestigators did not find an association between degree of anemia and the likelihood, or severity, of postpartum depression. However, they did find that anemia of any degree in the immediate peripartum period was most strongly associated with postpartum depression.

 

 


Though the exact mechanism of the anemia-depression link isn’t known, the fatigue associated with anemia may help predispose women to postpartum depression, said Dr. Sutherland. Also, she said, “iron can make a difference in synthesizing neurotransmitters” such as serotonin, “so it may follow that you might have some depressive symptoms.”

“The next step after this study, which was a launching point, is to see if we correct the degree of anemia and bring them to normal levels, if that can help decrease the risk of postpartum depression,” said Dr. Sutherland.

Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Sutherland S et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 35C.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– The risk of depression was more than doubled in women who were anemic during pregnancy, according to a recent retrospective cohort study of nearly 1,000 women. Among patients who had anemia at any point, the relative risk of screening positive for postpartum depression was 2.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-4.16).

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

“This was an unexpected finding,” said Shannon Sutherland, MD, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, in an interview after she presented the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Maternal suicide exceeds hemorrhage and hypertensive disease as a cause of U.S. maternal mortality,” wrote Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators in the poster accompanying the presentation. And anemia is common: “Anemia in pregnancy can be as high as 27.4% in low-income minority pregnant women in the third trimester,” they wrote.

“If we can find something like this that affects depression, and screen for it and correct for it, we can make a real big difference in patients’ lives,” said Dr. Sutherland in a video interview. “Screening for anemia ... is such a simple thing for us to do, and I also think it’s very easy for us to correct, and very cheap for us to correct.”

The 922 study participants were at least 16 years old and receiving postpartum care at an outpatient women’s health clinic. Patients who had diseases that disrupted iron metabolism or were tobacco users, and those on antidepressants, anxiolytics, or antipsychotics were excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria included anemia that required transfusion, and intrauterine fetal demise or neonatal mortality.

To assess depression, Dr. Sutherland and her colleagues administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at routine postpartum visits. Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators calculated the numbers of respondents who fell above and below the cutoff for potential depression on the 10-item self-report scale. They then looked at the proportion of women who scored positive for depression among those who were, and those who were not, anemic.

Possible depression was indicated by depression scale scores of 9.2% of participants, while three quarters (75.2%) were anemic either during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period. Among anemic patients, 10.8% screened positive for depression, while 4.8% of those without anemia met positive screening criteria for postpartum depression (P = .007).

 

 


Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators noted that fewer women in their cohort had postpartum depression than the national average of 19%. They may have missed some patients who would later develop depression since the screening occurred at the first postpartum visit; also, “it is possible that women deeply affected by [postpartum depression] may have been lost to follow-up,” they wrote.

Participants had a mean age of about 26 years, and body mass index was slightly higher for those with anemia than without (mean, 32.2 vs 31.2 kg/m2; P = .025).

Postpartum depression was not associated with marital status, substance use, ethnicity, parity, or the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage, in the investigators’ analysis.

Dr. Sutherland said that, in their analysis, she and her coinvestigators did not find an association between degree of anemia and the likelihood, or severity, of postpartum depression. However, they did find that anemia of any degree in the immediate peripartum period was most strongly associated with postpartum depression.

 

 


Though the exact mechanism of the anemia-depression link isn’t known, the fatigue associated with anemia may help predispose women to postpartum depression, said Dr. Sutherland. Also, she said, “iron can make a difference in synthesizing neurotransmitters” such as serotonin, “so it may follow that you might have some depressive symptoms.”

“The next step after this study, which was a launching point, is to see if we correct the degree of anemia and bring them to normal levels, if that can help decrease the risk of postpartum depression,” said Dr. Sutherland.

Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Sutherland S et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 35C.

 

– The risk of depression was more than doubled in women who were anemic during pregnancy, according to a recent retrospective cohort study of nearly 1,000 women. Among patients who had anemia at any point, the relative risk of screening positive for postpartum depression was 2.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-4.16).

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

“This was an unexpected finding,” said Shannon Sutherland, MD, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, in an interview after she presented the findings at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Maternal suicide exceeds hemorrhage and hypertensive disease as a cause of U.S. maternal mortality,” wrote Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators in the poster accompanying the presentation. And anemia is common: “Anemia in pregnancy can be as high as 27.4% in low-income minority pregnant women in the third trimester,” they wrote.

“If we can find something like this that affects depression, and screen for it and correct for it, we can make a real big difference in patients’ lives,” said Dr. Sutherland in a video interview. “Screening for anemia ... is such a simple thing for us to do, and I also think it’s very easy for us to correct, and very cheap for us to correct.”

The 922 study participants were at least 16 years old and receiving postpartum care at an outpatient women’s health clinic. Patients who had diseases that disrupted iron metabolism or were tobacco users, and those on antidepressants, anxiolytics, or antipsychotics were excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria included anemia that required transfusion, and intrauterine fetal demise or neonatal mortality.

To assess depression, Dr. Sutherland and her colleagues administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at routine postpartum visits. Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators calculated the numbers of respondents who fell above and below the cutoff for potential depression on the 10-item self-report scale. They then looked at the proportion of women who scored positive for depression among those who were, and those who were not, anemic.

Possible depression was indicated by depression scale scores of 9.2% of participants, while three quarters (75.2%) were anemic either during pregnancy or in the immediate postpartum period. Among anemic patients, 10.8% screened positive for depression, while 4.8% of those without anemia met positive screening criteria for postpartum depression (P = .007).

 

 


Dr. Sutherland and her collaborators noted that fewer women in their cohort had postpartum depression than the national average of 19%. They may have missed some patients who would later develop depression since the screening occurred at the first postpartum visit; also, “it is possible that women deeply affected by [postpartum depression] may have been lost to follow-up,” they wrote.

Participants had a mean age of about 26 years, and body mass index was slightly higher for those with anemia than without (mean, 32.2 vs 31.2 kg/m2; P = .025).

Postpartum depression was not associated with marital status, substance use, ethnicity, parity, or the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage, in the investigators’ analysis.

Dr. Sutherland said that, in their analysis, she and her coinvestigators did not find an association between degree of anemia and the likelihood, or severity, of postpartum depression. However, they did find that anemia of any degree in the immediate peripartum period was most strongly associated with postpartum depression.

 

 


Though the exact mechanism of the anemia-depression link isn’t known, the fatigue associated with anemia may help predispose women to postpartum depression, said Dr. Sutherland. Also, she said, “iron can make a difference in synthesizing neurotransmitters” such as serotonin, “so it may follow that you might have some depressive symptoms.”

“The next step after this study, which was a launching point, is to see if we correct the degree of anemia and bring them to normal levels, if that can help decrease the risk of postpartum depression,” said Dr. Sutherland.

Dr. Sutherland and her coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Sutherland S et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 35C.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACOG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

VIDEO: Doula care could avert over 200,000 cesareans annually

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 06/13/2019 - 16:03

– Having a trained doula in attendance at labor and delivery for nulliparous women could be a cost-effective strategy to prevent hundreds of thousands of cesarean deliveries yearly, according to a new analysis of the practice.

“We were interested in looking at the cost-effectiveness of having a professional doula at labor and delivery,” said Karen Greiner, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland. She and her colleagues had their interest sparked after reading a Cochrane review that found reduced rates of cesarean delivery and shortened labor times with continuous support during labor, she said in an interview.

The cost-effectiveness analysis, presented during a poster session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used a two-delivery model to track the effect of doula attendance at a nulliparous term labor and delivery. Since most women in the United States have two deliveries, the researchers analyzed what effect having a doula attend the first delivery would have on the subsequent pregnancy as well.

Ms. Greiner and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, about the number of nulliparous women with term deliveries in the United States annually, to see what effect doula care would have on cost and maternal outcomes. “We found that there was a significant reduction in cesarean deliveries – almost 220,000 – when a woman had a professional doula with her during labor and delivery, versus not having that doula support,” Ms. Greiner said in a video interview. “We also found a reduction in maternal deaths ... a reduction in uterine rupture, also in hysterectomies.”

The 51 maternal deaths, 382 uterine ruptures, and 100 subsequent hysterectomies averted by use of doulas would result in an increase of 7,227 quality-adjusted life years, the effectiveness metric chosen for the analysis. However, this benefit would come at an increased cost of $207 million for the theoretical cohort.

“We did find that doulas are expensive, that they do cost money,” acknowledged Ms. Greiner. She and her coauthors allocated $1,000 per doula – the median cost for doula attendance at labor and delivery in Portland, Ore. – in the model used for cost-effectiveness analysis.

“Overall, we found that having a doula during a woman’s labor and delivery is cost-effective up to $1,286 for the cost of the doula” when quality-adjusted life years are taken into account, said Ms. Greiner.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Greiner K et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 25C.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– Having a trained doula in attendance at labor and delivery for nulliparous women could be a cost-effective strategy to prevent hundreds of thousands of cesarean deliveries yearly, according to a new analysis of the practice.

“We were interested in looking at the cost-effectiveness of having a professional doula at labor and delivery,” said Karen Greiner, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland. She and her colleagues had their interest sparked after reading a Cochrane review that found reduced rates of cesarean delivery and shortened labor times with continuous support during labor, she said in an interview.

The cost-effectiveness analysis, presented during a poster session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used a two-delivery model to track the effect of doula attendance at a nulliparous term labor and delivery. Since most women in the United States have two deliveries, the researchers analyzed what effect having a doula attend the first delivery would have on the subsequent pregnancy as well.

Ms. Greiner and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, about the number of nulliparous women with term deliveries in the United States annually, to see what effect doula care would have on cost and maternal outcomes. “We found that there was a significant reduction in cesarean deliveries – almost 220,000 – when a woman had a professional doula with her during labor and delivery, versus not having that doula support,” Ms. Greiner said in a video interview. “We also found a reduction in maternal deaths ... a reduction in uterine rupture, also in hysterectomies.”

The 51 maternal deaths, 382 uterine ruptures, and 100 subsequent hysterectomies averted by use of doulas would result in an increase of 7,227 quality-adjusted life years, the effectiveness metric chosen for the analysis. However, this benefit would come at an increased cost of $207 million for the theoretical cohort.

“We did find that doulas are expensive, that they do cost money,” acknowledged Ms. Greiner. She and her coauthors allocated $1,000 per doula – the median cost for doula attendance at labor and delivery in Portland, Ore. – in the model used for cost-effectiveness analysis.

“Overall, we found that having a doula during a woman’s labor and delivery is cost-effective up to $1,286 for the cost of the doula” when quality-adjusted life years are taken into account, said Ms. Greiner.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Greiner K et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 25C.

– Having a trained doula in attendance at labor and delivery for nulliparous women could be a cost-effective strategy to prevent hundreds of thousands of cesarean deliveries yearly, according to a new analysis of the practice.

“We were interested in looking at the cost-effectiveness of having a professional doula at labor and delivery,” said Karen Greiner, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland. She and her colleagues had their interest sparked after reading a Cochrane review that found reduced rates of cesarean delivery and shortened labor times with continuous support during labor, she said in an interview.

The cost-effectiveness analysis, presented during a poster session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, used a two-delivery model to track the effect of doula attendance at a nulliparous term labor and delivery. Since most women in the United States have two deliveries, the researchers analyzed what effect having a doula attend the first delivery would have on the subsequent pregnancy as well.

Ms. Greiner and her colleagues used a theoretical cohort of 1.8 million women, about the number of nulliparous women with term deliveries in the United States annually, to see what effect doula care would have on cost and maternal outcomes. “We found that there was a significant reduction in cesarean deliveries – almost 220,000 – when a woman had a professional doula with her during labor and delivery, versus not having that doula support,” Ms. Greiner said in a video interview. “We also found a reduction in maternal deaths ... a reduction in uterine rupture, also in hysterectomies.”

The 51 maternal deaths, 382 uterine ruptures, and 100 subsequent hysterectomies averted by use of doulas would result in an increase of 7,227 quality-adjusted life years, the effectiveness metric chosen for the analysis. However, this benefit would come at an increased cost of $207 million for the theoretical cohort.

“We did find that doulas are expensive, that they do cost money,” acknowledged Ms. Greiner. She and her coauthors allocated $1,000 per doula – the median cost for doula attendance at labor and delivery in Portland, Ore. – in the model used for cost-effectiveness analysis.

“Overall, we found that having a doula during a woman’s labor and delivery is cost-effective up to $1,286 for the cost of the doula” when quality-adjusted life years are taken into account, said Ms. Greiner.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Greiner K et al. ACOG 2018. Abstract 25C.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACOG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

A Peek at Our May 2018 Issue

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:50
Display Headline
A Peek at Our May 2018 Issue
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Click here to view the articles published in May 2018.

Publications
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Click here to view the articles published in May 2018.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

Click here to view the articles published in May 2018.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
A Peek at Our May 2018 Issue
Display Headline
A Peek at Our May 2018 Issue
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 13:15
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 13:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 13:15