MDedge ObGyn

Only one-third of pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin for acne reported feeling confident in their understanding of emergency contraception (EC), in a survey of 57 clinicians.

Pregnancies among patients on isotretinoin have declined since the iPLEDGE risk management program was introduced in 2005, but from 2011 to 2017, 210 to 310 pregnancies were reported to the Food and Drug Administration every year, wrote Catherine E. Smiley of Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors Melissa Butt, DrPH, and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, of Penn State.

For patients on isotretinoin, EC “becomes critical when abstinence fails or contraception is not used properly,” but EC merits only a brief mention in iPLEDGE materials for patients and providers, they noted.

Patients on isotretinoin who choose abstinence as their form of birth control are the group at greatest risk for pregnancy, Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, said in an interview. “However, the iPLEDGE program fails to educate patients adequately on emergency contraception,” she explained.

To assess pediatric dermatologists’ understanding of EC and their contraception counseling practices for isotretinoin patients, the researchers surveyed 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin as part of their practices. The findings were published in Pediatric Dermatology.Respondents included 53 practicing dermatologists, 2 residents, and 2 fellows. Approximately one-third (31.6%) had been in practice for 6-10 years, almost 23% had been in practice for 3-5 years, and almost 20% had been in practice for 21 or more years. Almost two-thirds practiced pediatric dermatology only.

Overall, 58% of the respondents strongly agreed that they provided contraception counseling to patients at their initial visit for isotretinoin, but only 7% and 3.5% reported providing EC counseling at initial and follow-up visits, respectively. More than half (58%) said they did not counsel patients on the side effects of EC.

As for provider education, 7.1% of respondents said they had received formal education on EC counseling, 25% reported receiving informal education on EC counseling, and 68% said they received no education on EC counseling.

A total of 32% of respondents said they were at least somewhat confident in how to obtain EC in their state.

EC is an effective form of contraception if used after unprotected intercourse, and discounts can reduce the price to as low as $9.69, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Given that most providers in this study did not receive formal education on EC, and most do not provide EC counseling to their patients of reproductive potential on isotretinoin, EC education should be a core competency in dermatology residency education on isotretinoin prescribing,” the researchers noted. In addition, EC counseling in the iPLEDGE program should be improved by including more information in education materials and reminding patients that EC is an option, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the multiple-choice format that prevented respondents to share rationales for their responses, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need to improve EC education among pediatric dermatologists to better inform patients considering isotretinoin, especially those choosing abstinence as a method of birth control, they emphasized.

“This study is very important at this specific time for two reasons,” Dr. Zaenglein said in an interview. “The first is that with the recent disastrous rollout of the new iPLEDGE changes, there have been many calls to reform the REMS program. For the first time in the 22-year history of the program, the isotretinoin manufacturers, who manage the iPLEDGE program as an unidentified group (the IPMG), have been forced by the FDA to meet with the AAD iPLEDGE Task Force,” said Dr. Zaenglein, a member of the task force.

“The task force is currently advocating for common sense changes to iPLEDGE and I think enhancing education on emergency contraception is vital to the goal of the program, stated as ‘to manage the risk of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and to minimize fetal exposure,’ ” she added. For many patients who previously became pregnant on isotretinoin, Plan B, an over-the-counter, FDA-approved form of contraception, might have prevented that pregnancy if the patients received adequate education on EC, she said.

The current study is especially relevant now, said Dr. Zaenglein. “With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, access to abortion is restricted or completely banned in many states, which makes educating our patients on how to prevent pregnancy even more important.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she was “somewhat surprised” by how many respondents were not educating their isotretinoin patients on EC. “However, these results follow a known trend among dermatologists. Only 50% of dermatologists prescribe oral contraceptives for acne, despite its being an FDA-approved treatment for the most common dermatologic condition we see in adolescents and young adults,” she noted.

“In general, dermatologists, and subsequently dermatology residents, are poorly educated on issues of reproductive health and how they are relevant to dermatologic care,” she added.

Dr. Zaenglein’s take home message: “Dermatologists should educate all patients of childbearing potential taking isotretinoin on how to acquire and use emergency contraception at every visit.” As for additional research, she said that since the study was conducted with pediatric dermatologists, “it would be very interesting to see if general dermatologists had the same lack of comfort in educating patients on emergency contraception and what their standard counseling practices are.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zaenglein is a member of the AAD’s iPLEDGE Work Group and serves as an editor-in-chief of Pediatric Dermatology.

Only one-third of pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin for acne reported feeling confident in their understanding of emergency contraception (EC), in a survey of 57 clinicians.

Pregnancies among patients on isotretinoin have declined since the iPLEDGE risk management program was introduced in 2005, but from 2011 to 2017, 210 to 310 pregnancies were reported to the Food and Drug Administration every year, wrote Catherine E. Smiley of Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors Melissa Butt, DrPH, and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, of Penn State.

For patients on isotretinoin, EC “becomes critical when abstinence fails or contraception is not used properly,” but EC merits only a brief mention in iPLEDGE materials for patients and providers, they noted.

Patients on isotretinoin who choose abstinence as their form of birth control are the group at greatest risk for pregnancy, Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, said in an interview. “However, the iPLEDGE program fails to educate patients adequately on emergency contraception,” she explained.

To assess pediatric dermatologists’ understanding of EC and their contraception counseling practices for isotretinoin patients, the researchers surveyed 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin as part of their practices. The findings were published in Pediatric Dermatology.Respondents included 53 practicing dermatologists, 2 residents, and 2 fellows. Approximately one-third (31.6%) had been in practice for 6-10 years, almost 23% had been in practice for 3-5 years, and almost 20% had been in practice for 21 or more years. Almost two-thirds practiced pediatric dermatology only.

Overall, 58% of the respondents strongly agreed that they provided contraception counseling to patients at their initial visit for isotretinoin, but only 7% and 3.5% reported providing EC counseling at initial and follow-up visits, respectively. More than half (58%) said they did not counsel patients on the side effects of EC.

As for provider education, 7.1% of respondents said they had received formal education on EC counseling, 25% reported receiving informal education on EC counseling, and 68% said they received no education on EC counseling.

A total of 32% of respondents said they were at least somewhat confident in how to obtain EC in their state.

EC is an effective form of contraception if used after unprotected intercourse, and discounts can reduce the price to as low as $9.69, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Given that most providers in this study did not receive formal education on EC, and most do not provide EC counseling to their patients of reproductive potential on isotretinoin, EC education should be a core competency in dermatology residency education on isotretinoin prescribing,” the researchers noted. In addition, EC counseling in the iPLEDGE program should be improved by including more information in education materials and reminding patients that EC is an option, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the multiple-choice format that prevented respondents to share rationales for their responses, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need to improve EC education among pediatric dermatologists to better inform patients considering isotretinoin, especially those choosing abstinence as a method of birth control, they emphasized.

“This study is very important at this specific time for two reasons,” Dr. Zaenglein said in an interview. “The first is that with the recent disastrous rollout of the new iPLEDGE changes, there have been many calls to reform the REMS program. For the first time in the 22-year history of the program, the isotretinoin manufacturers, who manage the iPLEDGE program as an unidentified group (the IPMG), have been forced by the FDA to meet with the AAD iPLEDGE Task Force,” said Dr. Zaenglein, a member of the task force.

“The task force is currently advocating for common sense changes to iPLEDGE and I think enhancing education on emergency contraception is vital to the goal of the program, stated as ‘to manage the risk of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and to minimize fetal exposure,’ ” she added. For many patients who previously became pregnant on isotretinoin, Plan B, an over-the-counter, FDA-approved form of contraception, might have prevented that pregnancy if the patients received adequate education on EC, she said.

The current study is especially relevant now, said Dr. Zaenglein. “With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, access to abortion is restricted or completely banned in many states, which makes educating our patients on how to prevent pregnancy even more important.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she was “somewhat surprised” by how many respondents were not educating their isotretinoin patients on EC. “However, these results follow a known trend among dermatologists. Only 50% of dermatologists prescribe oral contraceptives for acne, despite its being an FDA-approved treatment for the most common dermatologic condition we see in adolescents and young adults,” she noted.

“In general, dermatologists, and subsequently dermatology residents, are poorly educated on issues of reproductive health and how they are relevant to dermatologic care,” she added.

Dr. Zaenglein’s take home message: “Dermatologists should educate all patients of childbearing potential taking isotretinoin on how to acquire and use emergency contraception at every visit.” As for additional research, she said that since the study was conducted with pediatric dermatologists, “it would be very interesting to see if general dermatologists had the same lack of comfort in educating patients on emergency contraception and what their standard counseling practices are.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zaenglein is a member of the AAD’s iPLEDGE Work Group and serves as an editor-in-chief of Pediatric Dermatology.

Only one-third of pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin for acne reported feeling confident in their understanding of emergency contraception (EC), in a survey of 57 clinicians.

Pregnancies among patients on isotretinoin have declined since the iPLEDGE risk management program was introduced in 2005, but from 2011 to 2017, 210 to 310 pregnancies were reported to the Food and Drug Administration every year, wrote Catherine E. Smiley of Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors Melissa Butt, DrPH, and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, of Penn State.

For patients on isotretinoin, EC “becomes critical when abstinence fails or contraception is not used properly,” but EC merits only a brief mention in iPLEDGE materials for patients and providers, they noted.

Patients on isotretinoin who choose abstinence as their form of birth control are the group at greatest risk for pregnancy, Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, said in an interview. “However, the iPLEDGE program fails to educate patients adequately on emergency contraception,” she explained.

To assess pediatric dermatologists’ understanding of EC and their contraception counseling practices for isotretinoin patients, the researchers surveyed 57 pediatric dermatologists who prescribed isotretinoin as part of their practices. The findings were published in Pediatric Dermatology.Respondents included 53 practicing dermatologists, 2 residents, and 2 fellows. Approximately one-third (31.6%) had been in practice for 6-10 years, almost 23% had been in practice for 3-5 years, and almost 20% had been in practice for 21 or more years. Almost two-thirds practiced pediatric dermatology only.

Overall, 58% of the respondents strongly agreed that they provided contraception counseling to patients at their initial visit for isotretinoin, but only 7% and 3.5% reported providing EC counseling at initial and follow-up visits, respectively. More than half (58%) said they did not counsel patients on the side effects of EC.

As for provider education, 7.1% of respondents said they had received formal education on EC counseling, 25% reported receiving informal education on EC counseling, and 68% said they received no education on EC counseling.

A total of 32% of respondents said they were at least somewhat confident in how to obtain EC in their state.

EC is an effective form of contraception if used after unprotected intercourse, and discounts can reduce the price to as low as $9.69, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Given that most providers in this study did not receive formal education on EC, and most do not provide EC counseling to their patients of reproductive potential on isotretinoin, EC education should be a core competency in dermatology residency education on isotretinoin prescribing,” the researchers noted. In addition, EC counseling in the iPLEDGE program should be improved by including more information in education materials and reminding patients that EC is an option, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the multiple-choice format that prevented respondents to share rationales for their responses, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the need to improve EC education among pediatric dermatologists to better inform patients considering isotretinoin, especially those choosing abstinence as a method of birth control, they emphasized.

“This study is very important at this specific time for two reasons,” Dr. Zaenglein said in an interview. “The first is that with the recent disastrous rollout of the new iPLEDGE changes, there have been many calls to reform the REMS program. For the first time in the 22-year history of the program, the isotretinoin manufacturers, who manage the iPLEDGE program as an unidentified group (the IPMG), have been forced by the FDA to meet with the AAD iPLEDGE Task Force,” said Dr. Zaenglein, a member of the task force.

“The task force is currently advocating for common sense changes to iPLEDGE and I think enhancing education on emergency contraception is vital to the goal of the program, stated as ‘to manage the risk of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and to minimize fetal exposure,’ ” she added. For many patients who previously became pregnant on isotretinoin, Plan B, an over-the-counter, FDA-approved form of contraception, might have prevented that pregnancy if the patients received adequate education on EC, she said.

The current study is especially relevant now, said Dr. Zaenglein. “With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, access to abortion is restricted or completely banned in many states, which makes educating our patients on how to prevent pregnancy even more important.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she was “somewhat surprised” by how many respondents were not educating their isotretinoin patients on EC. “However, these results follow a known trend among dermatologists. Only 50% of dermatologists prescribe oral contraceptives for acne, despite its being an FDA-approved treatment for the most common dermatologic condition we see in adolescents and young adults,” she noted.

“In general, dermatologists, and subsequently dermatology residents, are poorly educated on issues of reproductive health and how they are relevant to dermatologic care,” she added.

Dr. Zaenglein’s take home message: “Dermatologists should educate all patients of childbearing potential taking isotretinoin on how to acquire and use emergency contraception at every visit.” As for additional research, she said that since the study was conducted with pediatric dermatologists, “it would be very interesting to see if general dermatologists had the same lack of comfort in educating patients on emergency contraception and what their standard counseling practices are.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zaenglein is a member of the AAD’s iPLEDGE Work Group and serves as an editor-in-chief of Pediatric Dermatology.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Good news for pregnant women; bad news for fish

As soon as women find out they’re pregnant, doctors recommend they give up smoking, drinking, and eating certain types of fish. That last item may need to be reconsidered, since a recent study supports the idea that it doesn’t matter what type of fish pregnant women are eating, as long as they’re eating it.

franckreporter/Getty Images

Researchers collected data from two different studies that reviewed the mercury levels of mothers from Bristol, England, and the Seychelles, a island chain off East Africa where “fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than in the [United States],” they said in NeuroToxicology.

Those data showed that the mercury levels had no adverse effects on child development as long as the mother ate fish. The nutrients and vitamins in the fish – vitamin D, long-chain fatty acids, selenium, and iodine – provide protection against mercury. There’s also the already-known benefits to eyesight and intellectual abilities that have been associated with fish consumption.

This analysis goes starkly against the grain of what is commonly recommended to expectant mothers, which is to cut out fish altogether. The researchers suggested that governments should review and change those recommendations to focus on the benefits instead.

As long as women follow the researchers’ recommendation to eat “at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily,” they may not have to lay off on the sushi after all.
 

We’ll show our gut worms the world

Never let it be said that mankind is not a generous species. Sure, we could maybe be kinder to our fellow human beings, maybe declare a little less war on each other, but for the past 50,000 years, we’ve been giving a free ride to millions upon millions to one of mankind’s closest companions: the whipworm.

oksmith/openclipart.org

This revelation into human kindness comes from Denmark, where researchers from Copenhagen conducted a genetic analysis of ancient preserved whipworm eggs found in old Viking and Norse settlements, some of which date back over 2,000 years. In normal conditions genetic material wouldn’t last very long, but these were Viking whipworms eggs with tiny little horned helmets, so the DNA within has remained unchanged. Or it may be the tough chitinous exterior of the eggs protecting the DNA from degrading, combined with their preservation in moist soil.

Once they had their Viking whipworm DNA, the researchers compared it with whipworm DNA from all over the world, tracing its history as it followed mankind from Africa. And it’s been a while: We brought whipworms with us during our initial migration into Asia and Europe over 50,000 years ago. When the Bering land bridge opened up and humanity moved into the Americas, the worms came as well.

This is all possible because the whipworm goes about its parasitic business quietly and cleverly. It mostly sits harmlessly in our digestive systems, producing thousands of eggs a day that get expelled through poop and picked up by another host (human or otherwise); whipworms only cause disease in those with compromised immune systems.

The researchers noted that their study, the first complete genetic analysis of the whipworm, could help combat the parasite, which to this day infects hundred of millions who don’t have access to modern medicine or sanitary conditions. Hopefully, though, the days of free rides will soon be over for the whipworm. After all, if we have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to visit other countries, it’s only fair that our parasites do as well.
 

From zero to vasectomy in 6.7 seconds

There’s an old saying that you’ve probably heard: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. It’s meant to encourage optimism in the face of adversity. Then there’s the new saying we just made up: When life gives you a power outage, plug your surgical instruments into an electric pickup.

Rivian

That’s what Dr. Christopher Yang did, and now we’re making the urologist from Austin, Tex., famous by sharing his surgical/electrical adventure with all 17 of LOTME’s regular readers. That’s some serious lemonade.

Dr. Yang’s tale begins when the electricity went out at his clinic, seemingly forcing him to cancel or reschedule several surgical procedures. Not so fast. Dr. Yang happens to own a Rivian R1T, an electric pickup truck that has four power outlets. A staff member suggested plugging the surgical instruments into the truck and, surprisingly, one of the day’s patients agreed to go ahead with his vasectomy.

“We were fortunate that my normal parking spot is close enough to a patient room to run an extension cord,” Dr. Yang said on TheDrive.com. That extension cord was attached to an electrocautery device, with a handheld device available as backup, and “after we were done, I told his family. We all had a good laugh together too,” Dr. Yang told radio station WGLT in Normal, Ill.

To us, anyway, this opens up all sorts of alternative energy possibilities. Can a windmill power a liposuction? Is a gerbil running in a wheel enough to do a colonoscopy? How many potatoes do you need to keep an EHR going?
 

Learning through random acts of not-exactly noisiness

First things first. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is not really noise in the auditory sense of the word. For some people with learning disabilities, though, it can actually be very helpful. The technology, which uses electrodes attached to the head so a weak current can pass through specific parts of the brain, may help those with learning disabilities, perhaps even those with brain injuries and visual deficits, learn, said Dr. Onno van der Groen of Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

“When you add this type of stimulation during learning, you get better performance, faster learning and better attention afterwards as well,” he said in a statement from the university.

The researchers say that tRNS can allow the brain to form new connections and pathways, which in turn help a person learn more effectively. “If you do 10 sessions of a visual perception task with the tRNS and then come back and do it again without it, you’ll find you perform better than the control group who hasn’t used it,” Dr. van der Groen noted.

Can this also work for the average person? It’s possible, but tRNS didn’t seem to improve the math skills of a top-level mathematician who underwent the process, according to a case study that Dr. van der Groen mentioned.

This line of work is still pretty new, though, so researchers don’t have all the answers yet. As always, we’re rooting for you, science!

Good news for pregnant women; bad news for fish

As soon as women find out they’re pregnant, doctors recommend they give up smoking, drinking, and eating certain types of fish. That last item may need to be reconsidered, since a recent study supports the idea that it doesn’t matter what type of fish pregnant women are eating, as long as they’re eating it.

franckreporter/Getty Images

Researchers collected data from two different studies that reviewed the mercury levels of mothers from Bristol, England, and the Seychelles, a island chain off East Africa where “fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than in the [United States],” they said in NeuroToxicology.

Those data showed that the mercury levels had no adverse effects on child development as long as the mother ate fish. The nutrients and vitamins in the fish – vitamin D, long-chain fatty acids, selenium, and iodine – provide protection against mercury. There’s also the already-known benefits to eyesight and intellectual abilities that have been associated with fish consumption.

This analysis goes starkly against the grain of what is commonly recommended to expectant mothers, which is to cut out fish altogether. The researchers suggested that governments should review and change those recommendations to focus on the benefits instead.

As long as women follow the researchers’ recommendation to eat “at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily,” they may not have to lay off on the sushi after all.
 

We’ll show our gut worms the world

Never let it be said that mankind is not a generous species. Sure, we could maybe be kinder to our fellow human beings, maybe declare a little less war on each other, but for the past 50,000 years, we’ve been giving a free ride to millions upon millions to one of mankind’s closest companions: the whipworm.

oksmith/openclipart.org

This revelation into human kindness comes from Denmark, where researchers from Copenhagen conducted a genetic analysis of ancient preserved whipworm eggs found in old Viking and Norse settlements, some of which date back over 2,000 years. In normal conditions genetic material wouldn’t last very long, but these were Viking whipworms eggs with tiny little horned helmets, so the DNA within has remained unchanged. Or it may be the tough chitinous exterior of the eggs protecting the DNA from degrading, combined with their preservation in moist soil.

Once they had their Viking whipworm DNA, the researchers compared it with whipworm DNA from all over the world, tracing its history as it followed mankind from Africa. And it’s been a while: We brought whipworms with us during our initial migration into Asia and Europe over 50,000 years ago. When the Bering land bridge opened up and humanity moved into the Americas, the worms came as well.

This is all possible because the whipworm goes about its parasitic business quietly and cleverly. It mostly sits harmlessly in our digestive systems, producing thousands of eggs a day that get expelled through poop and picked up by another host (human or otherwise); whipworms only cause disease in those with compromised immune systems.

The researchers noted that their study, the first complete genetic analysis of the whipworm, could help combat the parasite, which to this day infects hundred of millions who don’t have access to modern medicine or sanitary conditions. Hopefully, though, the days of free rides will soon be over for the whipworm. After all, if we have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to visit other countries, it’s only fair that our parasites do as well.
 

From zero to vasectomy in 6.7 seconds

There’s an old saying that you’ve probably heard: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. It’s meant to encourage optimism in the face of adversity. Then there’s the new saying we just made up: When life gives you a power outage, plug your surgical instruments into an electric pickup.

Rivian

That’s what Dr. Christopher Yang did, and now we’re making the urologist from Austin, Tex., famous by sharing his surgical/electrical adventure with all 17 of LOTME’s regular readers. That’s some serious lemonade.

Dr. Yang’s tale begins when the electricity went out at his clinic, seemingly forcing him to cancel or reschedule several surgical procedures. Not so fast. Dr. Yang happens to own a Rivian R1T, an electric pickup truck that has four power outlets. A staff member suggested plugging the surgical instruments into the truck and, surprisingly, one of the day’s patients agreed to go ahead with his vasectomy.

“We were fortunate that my normal parking spot is close enough to a patient room to run an extension cord,” Dr. Yang said on TheDrive.com. That extension cord was attached to an electrocautery device, with a handheld device available as backup, and “after we were done, I told his family. We all had a good laugh together too,” Dr. Yang told radio station WGLT in Normal, Ill.

To us, anyway, this opens up all sorts of alternative energy possibilities. Can a windmill power a liposuction? Is a gerbil running in a wheel enough to do a colonoscopy? How many potatoes do you need to keep an EHR going?
 

Learning through random acts of not-exactly noisiness

First things first. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is not really noise in the auditory sense of the word. For some people with learning disabilities, though, it can actually be very helpful. The technology, which uses electrodes attached to the head so a weak current can pass through specific parts of the brain, may help those with learning disabilities, perhaps even those with brain injuries and visual deficits, learn, said Dr. Onno van der Groen of Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

“When you add this type of stimulation during learning, you get better performance, faster learning and better attention afterwards as well,” he said in a statement from the university.

The researchers say that tRNS can allow the brain to form new connections and pathways, which in turn help a person learn more effectively. “If you do 10 sessions of a visual perception task with the tRNS and then come back and do it again without it, you’ll find you perform better than the control group who hasn’t used it,” Dr. van der Groen noted.

Can this also work for the average person? It’s possible, but tRNS didn’t seem to improve the math skills of a top-level mathematician who underwent the process, according to a case study that Dr. van der Groen mentioned.

This line of work is still pretty new, though, so researchers don’t have all the answers yet. As always, we’re rooting for you, science!

Good news for pregnant women; bad news for fish

As soon as women find out they’re pregnant, doctors recommend they give up smoking, drinking, and eating certain types of fish. That last item may need to be reconsidered, since a recent study supports the idea that it doesn’t matter what type of fish pregnant women are eating, as long as they’re eating it.

franckreporter/Getty Images

Researchers collected data from two different studies that reviewed the mercury levels of mothers from Bristol, England, and the Seychelles, a island chain off East Africa where “fish consumption is high and prenatal mercury levels are 10 times higher than in the [United States],” they said in NeuroToxicology.

Those data showed that the mercury levels had no adverse effects on child development as long as the mother ate fish. The nutrients and vitamins in the fish – vitamin D, long-chain fatty acids, selenium, and iodine – provide protection against mercury. There’s also the already-known benefits to eyesight and intellectual abilities that have been associated with fish consumption.

This analysis goes starkly against the grain of what is commonly recommended to expectant mothers, which is to cut out fish altogether. The researchers suggested that governments should review and change those recommendations to focus on the benefits instead.

As long as women follow the researchers’ recommendation to eat “at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily,” they may not have to lay off on the sushi after all.
 

We’ll show our gut worms the world

Never let it be said that mankind is not a generous species. Sure, we could maybe be kinder to our fellow human beings, maybe declare a little less war on each other, but for the past 50,000 years, we’ve been giving a free ride to millions upon millions to one of mankind’s closest companions: the whipworm.

oksmith/openclipart.org

This revelation into human kindness comes from Denmark, where researchers from Copenhagen conducted a genetic analysis of ancient preserved whipworm eggs found in old Viking and Norse settlements, some of which date back over 2,000 years. In normal conditions genetic material wouldn’t last very long, but these were Viking whipworms eggs with tiny little horned helmets, so the DNA within has remained unchanged. Or it may be the tough chitinous exterior of the eggs protecting the DNA from degrading, combined with their preservation in moist soil.

Once they had their Viking whipworm DNA, the researchers compared it with whipworm DNA from all over the world, tracing its history as it followed mankind from Africa. And it’s been a while: We brought whipworms with us during our initial migration into Asia and Europe over 50,000 years ago. When the Bering land bridge opened up and humanity moved into the Americas, the worms came as well.

This is all possible because the whipworm goes about its parasitic business quietly and cleverly. It mostly sits harmlessly in our digestive systems, producing thousands of eggs a day that get expelled through poop and picked up by another host (human or otherwise); whipworms only cause disease in those with compromised immune systems.

The researchers noted that their study, the first complete genetic analysis of the whipworm, could help combat the parasite, which to this day infects hundred of millions who don’t have access to modern medicine or sanitary conditions. Hopefully, though, the days of free rides will soon be over for the whipworm. After all, if we have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to visit other countries, it’s only fair that our parasites do as well.
 

From zero to vasectomy in 6.7 seconds

There’s an old saying that you’ve probably heard: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. It’s meant to encourage optimism in the face of adversity. Then there’s the new saying we just made up: When life gives you a power outage, plug your surgical instruments into an electric pickup.

Rivian

That’s what Dr. Christopher Yang did, and now we’re making the urologist from Austin, Tex., famous by sharing his surgical/electrical adventure with all 17 of LOTME’s regular readers. That’s some serious lemonade.

Dr. Yang’s tale begins when the electricity went out at his clinic, seemingly forcing him to cancel or reschedule several surgical procedures. Not so fast. Dr. Yang happens to own a Rivian R1T, an electric pickup truck that has four power outlets. A staff member suggested plugging the surgical instruments into the truck and, surprisingly, one of the day’s patients agreed to go ahead with his vasectomy.

“We were fortunate that my normal parking spot is close enough to a patient room to run an extension cord,” Dr. Yang said on TheDrive.com. That extension cord was attached to an electrocautery device, with a handheld device available as backup, and “after we were done, I told his family. We all had a good laugh together too,” Dr. Yang told radio station WGLT in Normal, Ill.

To us, anyway, this opens up all sorts of alternative energy possibilities. Can a windmill power a liposuction? Is a gerbil running in a wheel enough to do a colonoscopy? How many potatoes do you need to keep an EHR going?
 

Learning through random acts of not-exactly noisiness

First things first. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is not really noise in the auditory sense of the word. For some people with learning disabilities, though, it can actually be very helpful. The technology, which uses electrodes attached to the head so a weak current can pass through specific parts of the brain, may help those with learning disabilities, perhaps even those with brain injuries and visual deficits, learn, said Dr. Onno van der Groen of Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

“When you add this type of stimulation during learning, you get better performance, faster learning and better attention afterwards as well,” he said in a statement from the university.

The researchers say that tRNS can allow the brain to form new connections and pathways, which in turn help a person learn more effectively. “If you do 10 sessions of a visual perception task with the tRNS and then come back and do it again without it, you’ll find you perform better than the control group who hasn’t used it,” Dr. van der Groen noted.

Can this also work for the average person? It’s possible, but tRNS didn’t seem to improve the math skills of a top-level mathematician who underwent the process, according to a case study that Dr. van der Groen mentioned.

This line of work is still pretty new, though, so researchers don’t have all the answers yet. As always, we’re rooting for you, science!

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

When Michael McGrath, MD, medical director of the Ohana Luxury Alcohol Rehab on the Big Island of Hawaii, trains primary care physicians, he tells them that talking with patients about substance use disorders is like having a stressful, weird conversation. But it’s a courageous one, because of the stigma associated with drug and alcohol disorders.

Dr. McGrath starts the conversation with patients by expressing that physicians now understand that addiction is a disease – one for which the patient isn’t responsible. He explains that there’s both a genetic and a nature/nurture component of the disorder and assures them that he won’t judge or abandon them but rather help them find treatment and make sure they get on the path to wellness.

It’s all too common to see patients with a substance use disorder in today’s primary care population. According to Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues Report 2022, 42% of physicians see patients with a substance use disorder often in their practices. However, identifying substance use disorders and treating or referring patients for them is a complex problem.

According to the Recovery Research Institute, a leading nonprofit orgnaization from Massachusetts General Hospital dedicated to advancing addiction treatment and recovery, about 20 million people in the United States suffer from a substance use disorder. More than half (54%) need assistance with their recovery. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that substance abuse and addiction cost society more than $740 billion annually in workplace productivity, health care, and crime-related expenses.

Despite the challenges, physician experts provide advice on how to treat and help patients who have substance use disorders more effectively.
 

A courageous conversation

Often, the primary care physician or emergency physician is the first to be aware of a patient’s problem with a substance or a relapse. In many communities where shortages of specialized physicians and nonphysician treatment options for substance use disorders aren’t available, there’s usually limited time and resources to help patients with these disorders.

Patients often sense doctors are rushed and may not be interested in hearing about their drug or alcohol problems. Reddit threads are filled with stories like that of user “Cyralek,” who say that the two doctors they’ve seen since quitting drinking didn’t show much interest in the problem beyond ordering liver function tests.

In a nationwide study by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, 80% of patients who met the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder visited a doctor, hospital, or clinic for some reason over the past year. Only 1 in 10 were encouraged to cut back on drinking or receive any form of treatment or referral for substance misuse.

Emma Gordon, founder of a salvage yard in Los Angeles, says she used to abuse alcohol and that it affected every aspect of her life. Her brother tried to intervene, but nothing worked until she finally told a physician. “I admitted my problem and felt incredibly calm when she reacted as though it was all normal. I believe that was my first step to becoming a better me. I was thankful I had gone to see a doctor,” says Ms. Gordon.

Though physicians in primary care may not have more than a 15-minute appointment slot, seizing the opportunity to initiate a substance use disorder conversation when warranted is crucial, says Dr. McGrath. The CAGE-AID screening tool, which includes questions such as, “Have you ever felt you ought to cut down on your drinking or drug use?” is an excellent starter. Dr. McGrath also advises primary care clinicians to lower the threshold of concern to a single positive answer rather than several.

Doctors aren’t necessarily rewarded for the time it takes to develop a rapport with patients and to have a conversation that leads to asking, “How much are you drinking?”

“The system in primary care isn’t set up that way,” said Lucy McBride, MD, an internist in Washington, D.C.
 

Patients don’t often ask for help

In a perfect world, patients struggling with a substance use disorder would present with a request to discontinue using drugs or alcohol, as Ms. Gordon did. While that does happen sometimes, the onus is on the physician to screen for substance misuse.

“Remember, this is the disease that tells you that you don’t have a disease,” Dr. McGrath says. He also says that the use of screening instruments is a bare minimum. When patients are in the throes of a substance use disorder, the prefrontal cortex doesn’t work effectively. Dr. McGrath says there’s an alteration of consciousness so that the patient doesn’t realize the extent of the disease. “Often simply asking the patient is falling far short. It’s the biggest mistake I see,” he says.

Self-reporting from the patient may be unreliable. “That would be like a patient coming in and saying, ‘My blood sugar is 700, and I want you to give me some insulin,’ ” Dr. McGrath says. Instead, clinicians in the field need a more objective measurement.

Perhaps that means asking the patient to bring in a significant other at the next visit or digging deeper into the conversation about alcohol and drugs and their role in the patient’s life. And to really have an impact, Dr. McGrath said, the clinician should talk to the patient about referral for further evaluation.

“You have to get collateral history; that’s the goldmine for the clinician,” Dr. McGrath says. “It may take a few more minutes or mean talking to a family member, but it can make the difference between life and death.”

“I am thankful to my doctor who discussed this [substance use disorder] with me in detail,” says Ronald Williams, another Angeleno who braved the difficult discussion with his doctor. Mr. Williams says his doctor explained it in a good way and that if the doctor hadn’t guided him empathetically, the conversation might not have gone as well.

“We check patients’ cholesterol. We get them on the scale. But there is no blood test to discover how much they’re drinking, no PCR to test for social anxiety, no MRI that distinguishes between their recreational marijuana use and marijuana abuse,” said Dr. McBride.
 

Check the prescription drugs they’re taking

Another thing Dr. McGrath recommends is for primary care physicians to check the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database in their state to help be alerted to a patient with a substance use disorder. The CDC’s PMPD guidelines recommend that the clinician check on a patient every 3 months or each time they write an opioid prescription. Assigning a staff member or a nurse to check the database can help uncover a history of doctor-shopping or use of controlled substances.

“There’s been a lot of times I’ve gone on self-report, and I’ve been bamboozled because I don’t have a truth-o-meter, and I can’t tell when a patient is telling the truth,” says Dr. McGrath.

He is also a huge proponent of point-of-service screening. Patients can urinate in a cup that has amino assay strips on the side, like an immediate COVID-19 test, or they can spit into a saliva cup. “It’s really beneficial for the patient and the clinician to know right then at the point of service if there is a substance present and what it is,” Dr. McGrath said.

It can be part of the larger conversation once a problem with substances has been uncovered. The clinician can say something like, “Let’s see where you are right now today as far as what you have in your system and where we should go from here.”
 

Other barriers physicians face

Many physicians may feel unprepared to meet the needs of patients with substance use disorders or prescribe medication that blunts cravings and reduces the urge to drink without the need for special training. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that only 1.6% of people with a substance use disorder were prescribed medication to help control it.

In the largest study on how primary care physicians address substance use disorders, fewer than 20% described themselves as very prepared to identify alcoholism or illegal drug use. Since most patients prefer to seek treatment from their primary care doctor, at least initially, not being prepared is a problem.

Although referral for specialty addiction treatment is recommended for patients with severe substance use disorders, primary care physicians with appropriate experience, training, and support can provide some of these services. “In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to refer patients out, since they’re much more likely to talk with their primary care provider about sensitive, intimate topics,” says Dr. McBride.
 

The issue of reimbursement

Billing for substance use disorder counseling or coordination of care is still challenging, and how to get compensated remains a conundrum for many physicians. Reimbursement may not adequately compensate providers for the additional time and staff needed, but some changes have been positive.

For instance, the American Society for Addiction Medicine reports that in 2022, Medicare expanded the physician fee schedule for opioid and SUD counseling to include reimbursement for telemedicine services.

Learning the billing CPT codes for various addiction treatments and counseling, or having a billing service that understands them, is crucial to reimbursement and keeping revenue running smoothly.

At the very least, developing relationships with treatment centers and specialists in the community can help physicians with referrals and with determining the level of care needed. Physicians can help facilitate that care with routine reassessment and frequent follow-ups, as well as by requesting reports from the treatment facility, continuing treatment of medical conditions, and reinforcing the importance of continued substance use disorder treatment.

Dr. McBride says that primary care physicians can and should make their office a safe, blame-free medical home for patients with substance use disorders. “Patients also need to understand they should bring their whole selves to the doctor – to talk about their sleep, what they consume, their depression, and not just about alcohol, but their relationship with it, and other substances,” she says.

“There needs to be time to talk about it.”

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

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) leads to improved birth outcomes and lower infant mortality, and possibly better preventive childcare, suggests new research.

How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.

The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.

All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.

“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”

Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.

Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
 

Growing evidence should drive enrollment

“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.

“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.

“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
 

Goals of future research

Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.

“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”

Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.

Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.

“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.

Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”

She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.

Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.

“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) leads to improved birth outcomes and lower infant mortality, and possibly better preventive childcare, suggests new research.

How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.

The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.

All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.

“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”

Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.

Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
 

Growing evidence should drive enrollment

“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.

“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.

“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
 

Goals of future research

Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.

“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”

Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.

Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.

“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.

Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”

She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.

Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.

“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) leads to improved birth outcomes and lower infant mortality, and possibly better preventive childcare, suggests new research.

How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.

The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.

All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.

“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”

Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.

Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
 

Growing evidence should drive enrollment

“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.

“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”

Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.

“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
 

Goals of future research

Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.

“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”

Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.

Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.

“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.

Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”

She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.

Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.

“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

As life-preserving medical technology advanced in the second half of the 20th century, doctors and families were faced with a thorny decision, one with weighty legal and moral implications: How should we define when life ends? Cardiopulmonary bypass machines could keep the blood pumping and ventilators could maintain breathing long after a patient’s natural ability to perform those vital functions had ceased.

After decades of deliberations involving physicians, bioethicists, attorneys, and theologians, a U.S. presidential commission in 1981 settled on a scientifically derived dividing line between life and death that has endured, more or less, ever since: A person was considered dead when the entire brain – including the brain stem, its most primitive portion – was no longer functioning, even if other vital functions could be maintained indefinitely through artificial life support.

In the decades since, the committee’s criteria have served as a foundation for laws in most states adopting brain death as a standard for legal death.

Now, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and dozens of states rushing to impose abortion restrictions, American society is engaged in a chaotic race to define the other pole of human existence: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, the hint of a heartbeat, a first breath, the ability to survive outside the womb with the help of the latest technology?

That we’ve been able to devise and apply uniform clinical standards for when life ends, but not when it begins, is due largely to the legal and political maelstrom around abortion. And in the 2 months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eliminating a longstanding federal right to abortion, state legislators are eagerly bounding into that void, looking to codify into law assorted definitions of life that carry profound repercussions for abortion rights, birth control, and assisted reproduction, as well as civil and criminal law.

“The court said that when life begins is up to whoever is running your state – whether they are wrong or not, or you agree with them or not,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written several books on the history of abortion.

Unlike the debate over death, which delved into exquisite medical and scientific detail, the legislative scramble to determine when life’s building blocks reach a threshold that warrants government protection as human life has generally ignored the input of mainstream medical professionals.

Instead, red states across much of the South and portions of the Midwest are adopting language drafted by elected officials that is informed by conservative Christian doctrine, often with little scientific underpinning.

A handful of Republican-led states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have passed laws declaring that life begins at fertilization, a contention that opens the door to a host of pregnancy-related litigation. This includes wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of the estate of an embryo by disgruntled ex-partners against physicians and women who end a pregnancy or even miscarry. (One such lawsuit is underway in Arizona. Another reached the Alabama Supreme Court.)

In Kentucky, the law outlawing abortion uses morally explosive terms to define pregnancy as “the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

Several other states, including Georgia, have adopted measures equating life with the point at which an embryo’s nascent cardiac activity can be detected by an ultrasound, at around 6 weeks of gestation. Many such laws mischaracterize the flickering electrical impulses detectable at that stage as a heartbeat, including in Georgia, whose Department of Revenue recently announced that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” can be claimed as a dependent.

The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion did not define a moment when life begins. The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, observed that the Constitution does not provide a definition of “person,” though it extends protections to those born or naturalized in the United States. The court majority made note of the many disparate views among religions and scientists on when life begins, and concluded it was not up to the states to adopt one theory of life.

Instead, Roe created a framework intended to balance a pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body with a public interest in protecting potential human life. That decision and a key ruling that followed generally recognized a woman’s right to abortion up to the point medical professionals judge a fetus viable to survive outside the uterus, at about 24 weeks of gestation.

In decisively overturning Roe in June, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority drew on legal arguments that have shaped another contentious end-of-life issue. The legal standard employed in Dobbs – that there is no right to abortion in the federal Constitution and that states can decide on their own – is the same rationale used in 1997 when the Supreme Court said terminally ill people did not have a constitutional right to medically assisted death. That decision, Washington v. Glucksberg, is mentioned 15 times in the majority opinion for Dobbs and a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Often, the same groups that have led the fight to outlaw abortion have also challenged medical aid-in-dying laws. Even after Dobbs, so-called right-to-die laws remain far less common than those codifying state abortion rights. Ten states allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients. Doctors are still prohibited from administering the drugs.

James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee who has been central to the efforts to outlaw abortion, said that both abortion and medically assisted death, which he refers to as physician-assisted suicide, endanger society.

“Every individual human life has inherent value and is sacred,” said Mr. Bopp. “The government has the duty to protect that life.”

Both issues raise profound societal questions: Can the government keep a patient on life support against his wishes, or force a woman to give birth? Can states bar their own residents from going to other states to end a pregnancy, or prohibit out-of-state patients from coming in to seek medically assisted death? And who gets to decide, particularly if the answer imposes a singular religious viewpoint?

Just as there are legal implications that flow from determining a person’s death, from organ donation to inheritance, the implied rights held by a legally recognized zygote are potentially vast. Will death certificates be issued for every lost pregnancy? Will miscarriages be investigated? When will Social Security numbers be issued? How will census counts be tallied and congressional districts drawn?

Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment – and are ill suited to the political arena.

“Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes,” said David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Moreover, asking doctors “What is life?” or “What is death?” may miss the point, said Dr. Magnus: “Medicine can answer the question ‘When does a biological organism cease to exist?’ But they can’t answer the question ‘When does a person begin or end?’ because those are metaphysical issues.”

Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in the department of philosophy at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more – a heap?

“We’re going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person,” he said. “Many things count as life – a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life – but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?”

Even as debate over the court’s abortion decision percolates, the 1981 federal statute that grew out of the presidential committee’s findings, the Uniform Determination of Death Act, is also under review. In 2022, the Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan group of legal experts that drafts laws intended for adoption in multiple states, has taken up the work to revisit the definition of death.

The group will consider sharpening the medical standards for brain death in light of advances in the understanding of brain function. And they will look to address lingering questions raised in recent years as families and religious groups have waged heated legal battles over terminating artificial life support for patients with no brain wave activity.

Mr. Bopp, with the National Right to Life Committee, is among those serving on advisory panels for the effort, along with an array of doctors, philosophers, and medical ethicists. The concept of “personhood” that infuses the antiabortion movement’s broader push for fetal rights is expected to be an underlying topic, albeit in mirror image: When does a life form cease being a person?

Dr. Magnus, who is also serving on an advisory panel, has no doubt the commission will reach a consensus, a sober resolution rooted in science. What’s less clear, he said, is whether in today’s political environment that updated definition will hold the same sway, an enduring legal standard embraced across states.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As life-preserving medical technology advanced in the second half of the 20th century, doctors and families were faced with a thorny decision, one with weighty legal and moral implications: How should we define when life ends? Cardiopulmonary bypass machines could keep the blood pumping and ventilators could maintain breathing long after a patient’s natural ability to perform those vital functions had ceased.

After decades of deliberations involving physicians, bioethicists, attorneys, and theologians, a U.S. presidential commission in 1981 settled on a scientifically derived dividing line between life and death that has endured, more or less, ever since: A person was considered dead when the entire brain – including the brain stem, its most primitive portion – was no longer functioning, even if other vital functions could be maintained indefinitely through artificial life support.

In the decades since, the committee’s criteria have served as a foundation for laws in most states adopting brain death as a standard for legal death.

Now, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and dozens of states rushing to impose abortion restrictions, American society is engaged in a chaotic race to define the other pole of human existence: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, the hint of a heartbeat, a first breath, the ability to survive outside the womb with the help of the latest technology?

That we’ve been able to devise and apply uniform clinical standards for when life ends, but not when it begins, is due largely to the legal and political maelstrom around abortion. And in the 2 months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eliminating a longstanding federal right to abortion, state legislators are eagerly bounding into that void, looking to codify into law assorted definitions of life that carry profound repercussions for abortion rights, birth control, and assisted reproduction, as well as civil and criminal law.

“The court said that when life begins is up to whoever is running your state – whether they are wrong or not, or you agree with them or not,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written several books on the history of abortion.

Unlike the debate over death, which delved into exquisite medical and scientific detail, the legislative scramble to determine when life’s building blocks reach a threshold that warrants government protection as human life has generally ignored the input of mainstream medical professionals.

Instead, red states across much of the South and portions of the Midwest are adopting language drafted by elected officials that is informed by conservative Christian doctrine, often with little scientific underpinning.

A handful of Republican-led states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have passed laws declaring that life begins at fertilization, a contention that opens the door to a host of pregnancy-related litigation. This includes wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of the estate of an embryo by disgruntled ex-partners against physicians and women who end a pregnancy or even miscarry. (One such lawsuit is underway in Arizona. Another reached the Alabama Supreme Court.)

In Kentucky, the law outlawing abortion uses morally explosive terms to define pregnancy as “the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

Several other states, including Georgia, have adopted measures equating life with the point at which an embryo’s nascent cardiac activity can be detected by an ultrasound, at around 6 weeks of gestation. Many such laws mischaracterize the flickering electrical impulses detectable at that stage as a heartbeat, including in Georgia, whose Department of Revenue recently announced that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” can be claimed as a dependent.

The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion did not define a moment when life begins. The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, observed that the Constitution does not provide a definition of “person,” though it extends protections to those born or naturalized in the United States. The court majority made note of the many disparate views among religions and scientists on when life begins, and concluded it was not up to the states to adopt one theory of life.

Instead, Roe created a framework intended to balance a pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body with a public interest in protecting potential human life. That decision and a key ruling that followed generally recognized a woman’s right to abortion up to the point medical professionals judge a fetus viable to survive outside the uterus, at about 24 weeks of gestation.

In decisively overturning Roe in June, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority drew on legal arguments that have shaped another contentious end-of-life issue. The legal standard employed in Dobbs – that there is no right to abortion in the federal Constitution and that states can decide on their own – is the same rationale used in 1997 when the Supreme Court said terminally ill people did not have a constitutional right to medically assisted death. That decision, Washington v. Glucksberg, is mentioned 15 times in the majority opinion for Dobbs and a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Often, the same groups that have led the fight to outlaw abortion have also challenged medical aid-in-dying laws. Even after Dobbs, so-called right-to-die laws remain far less common than those codifying state abortion rights. Ten states allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients. Doctors are still prohibited from administering the drugs.

James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee who has been central to the efforts to outlaw abortion, said that both abortion and medically assisted death, which he refers to as physician-assisted suicide, endanger society.

“Every individual human life has inherent value and is sacred,” said Mr. Bopp. “The government has the duty to protect that life.”

Both issues raise profound societal questions: Can the government keep a patient on life support against his wishes, or force a woman to give birth? Can states bar their own residents from going to other states to end a pregnancy, or prohibit out-of-state patients from coming in to seek medically assisted death? And who gets to decide, particularly if the answer imposes a singular religious viewpoint?

Just as there are legal implications that flow from determining a person’s death, from organ donation to inheritance, the implied rights held by a legally recognized zygote are potentially vast. Will death certificates be issued for every lost pregnancy? Will miscarriages be investigated? When will Social Security numbers be issued? How will census counts be tallied and congressional districts drawn?

Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment – and are ill suited to the political arena.

“Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes,” said David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Moreover, asking doctors “What is life?” or “What is death?” may miss the point, said Dr. Magnus: “Medicine can answer the question ‘When does a biological organism cease to exist?’ But they can’t answer the question ‘When does a person begin or end?’ because those are metaphysical issues.”

Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in the department of philosophy at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more – a heap?

“We’re going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person,” he said. “Many things count as life – a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life – but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?”

Even as debate over the court’s abortion decision percolates, the 1981 federal statute that grew out of the presidential committee’s findings, the Uniform Determination of Death Act, is also under review. In 2022, the Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan group of legal experts that drafts laws intended for adoption in multiple states, has taken up the work to revisit the definition of death.

The group will consider sharpening the medical standards for brain death in light of advances in the understanding of brain function. And they will look to address lingering questions raised in recent years as families and religious groups have waged heated legal battles over terminating artificial life support for patients with no brain wave activity.

Mr. Bopp, with the National Right to Life Committee, is among those serving on advisory panels for the effort, along with an array of doctors, philosophers, and medical ethicists. The concept of “personhood” that infuses the antiabortion movement’s broader push for fetal rights is expected to be an underlying topic, albeit in mirror image: When does a life form cease being a person?

Dr. Magnus, who is also serving on an advisory panel, has no doubt the commission will reach a consensus, a sober resolution rooted in science. What’s less clear, he said, is whether in today’s political environment that updated definition will hold the same sway, an enduring legal standard embraced across states.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As life-preserving medical technology advanced in the second half of the 20th century, doctors and families were faced with a thorny decision, one with weighty legal and moral implications: How should we define when life ends? Cardiopulmonary bypass machines could keep the blood pumping and ventilators could maintain breathing long after a patient’s natural ability to perform those vital functions had ceased.

After decades of deliberations involving physicians, bioethicists, attorneys, and theologians, a U.S. presidential commission in 1981 settled on a scientifically derived dividing line between life and death that has endured, more or less, ever since: A person was considered dead when the entire brain – including the brain stem, its most primitive portion – was no longer functioning, even if other vital functions could be maintained indefinitely through artificial life support.

In the decades since, the committee’s criteria have served as a foundation for laws in most states adopting brain death as a standard for legal death.

Now, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and dozens of states rushing to impose abortion restrictions, American society is engaged in a chaotic race to define the other pole of human existence: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, the hint of a heartbeat, a first breath, the ability to survive outside the womb with the help of the latest technology?

That we’ve been able to devise and apply uniform clinical standards for when life ends, but not when it begins, is due largely to the legal and political maelstrom around abortion. And in the 2 months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eliminating a longstanding federal right to abortion, state legislators are eagerly bounding into that void, looking to codify into law assorted definitions of life that carry profound repercussions for abortion rights, birth control, and assisted reproduction, as well as civil and criminal law.

“The court said that when life begins is up to whoever is running your state – whether they are wrong or not, or you agree with them or not,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written several books on the history of abortion.

Unlike the debate over death, which delved into exquisite medical and scientific detail, the legislative scramble to determine when life’s building blocks reach a threshold that warrants government protection as human life has generally ignored the input of mainstream medical professionals.

Instead, red states across much of the South and portions of the Midwest are adopting language drafted by elected officials that is informed by conservative Christian doctrine, often with little scientific underpinning.

A handful of Republican-led states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, have passed laws declaring that life begins at fertilization, a contention that opens the door to a host of pregnancy-related litigation. This includes wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of the estate of an embryo by disgruntled ex-partners against physicians and women who end a pregnancy or even miscarry. (One such lawsuit is underway in Arizona. Another reached the Alabama Supreme Court.)

In Kentucky, the law outlawing abortion uses morally explosive terms to define pregnancy as “the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

Several other states, including Georgia, have adopted measures equating life with the point at which an embryo’s nascent cardiac activity can be detected by an ultrasound, at around 6 weeks of gestation. Many such laws mischaracterize the flickering electrical impulses detectable at that stage as a heartbeat, including in Georgia, whose Department of Revenue recently announced that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” can be claimed as a dependent.

The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion did not define a moment when life begins. The opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, observed that the Constitution does not provide a definition of “person,” though it extends protections to those born or naturalized in the United States. The court majority made note of the many disparate views among religions and scientists on when life begins, and concluded it was not up to the states to adopt one theory of life.

Instead, Roe created a framework intended to balance a pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body with a public interest in protecting potential human life. That decision and a key ruling that followed generally recognized a woman’s right to abortion up to the point medical professionals judge a fetus viable to survive outside the uterus, at about 24 weeks of gestation.

In decisively overturning Roe in June, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority drew on legal arguments that have shaped another contentious end-of-life issue. The legal standard employed in Dobbs – that there is no right to abortion in the federal Constitution and that states can decide on their own – is the same rationale used in 1997 when the Supreme Court said terminally ill people did not have a constitutional right to medically assisted death. That decision, Washington v. Glucksberg, is mentioned 15 times in the majority opinion for Dobbs and a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Often, the same groups that have led the fight to outlaw abortion have also challenged medical aid-in-dying laws. Even after Dobbs, so-called right-to-die laws remain far less common than those codifying state abortion rights. Ten states allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients. Doctors are still prohibited from administering the drugs.

James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee who has been central to the efforts to outlaw abortion, said that both abortion and medically assisted death, which he refers to as physician-assisted suicide, endanger society.

“Every individual human life has inherent value and is sacred,” said Mr. Bopp. “The government has the duty to protect that life.”

Both issues raise profound societal questions: Can the government keep a patient on life support against his wishes, or force a woman to give birth? Can states bar their own residents from going to other states to end a pregnancy, or prohibit out-of-state patients from coming in to seek medically assisted death? And who gets to decide, particularly if the answer imposes a singular religious viewpoint?

Just as there are legal implications that flow from determining a person’s death, from organ donation to inheritance, the implied rights held by a legally recognized zygote are potentially vast. Will death certificates be issued for every lost pregnancy? Will miscarriages be investigated? When will Social Security numbers be issued? How will census counts be tallied and congressional districts drawn?

Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment – and are ill suited to the political arena.

“Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes,” said David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Moreover, asking doctors “What is life?” or “What is death?” may miss the point, said Dr. Magnus: “Medicine can answer the question ‘When does a biological organism cease to exist?’ But they can’t answer the question ‘When does a person begin or end?’ because those are metaphysical issues.”

Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in the department of philosophy at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more – a heap?

“We’re going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person,” he said. “Many things count as life – a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life – but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?”

Even as debate over the court’s abortion decision percolates, the 1981 federal statute that grew out of the presidential committee’s findings, the Uniform Determination of Death Act, is also under review. In 2022, the Uniform Law Commission, a nonpartisan group of legal experts that drafts laws intended for adoption in multiple states, has taken up the work to revisit the definition of death.

The group will consider sharpening the medical standards for brain death in light of advances in the understanding of brain function. And they will look to address lingering questions raised in recent years as families and religious groups have waged heated legal battles over terminating artificial life support for patients with no brain wave activity.

Mr. Bopp, with the National Right to Life Committee, is among those serving on advisory panels for the effort, along with an array of doctors, philosophers, and medical ethicists. The concept of “personhood” that infuses the antiabortion movement’s broader push for fetal rights is expected to be an underlying topic, albeit in mirror image: When does a life form cease being a person?

Dr. Magnus, who is also serving on an advisory panel, has no doubt the commission will reach a consensus, a sober resolution rooted in science. What’s less clear, he said, is whether in today’s political environment that updated definition will hold the same sway, an enduring legal standard embraced across states.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

People who lift weights understand they’re playing a long game.

Once they get past the “newbie gains” – the quick and exciting increases in muscle strength and size – it takes time, effort, and patience to keep making progress.

Whether they know it or not, they’re also playing the longevity game.

A growing body of research shows that resistance training adds years to both lifespan and “healthspan” – the period of life when we’re in good health.

A 2022 study review from Japanese researchers linked “muscle-strengthening activities” to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality.

BeyondImages/Getty Images

Resistance exercise was also linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (17%), cancer (12%), and diabetes (17%).

We’ve known for a long time that strength is an excellent predictor of future health. Lots of research has shown that, if all else is equal, stronger men and women have a much lower risk of dying during a given period than people with less strength.

This new research shows that strength training offers similar protection, regardless of the results of that training. So even if you don’t think you’re getting as strong or as lean as you’d like to be, you should keep it up – because chances are, you’re still helping your health in a big way.
 

How strength training helps as you age

For longevity, strength training seems to be especially effective for older adults, says Roger Fielding, PhD, of Tufts University Medford, Mass., who’s been studying the role of exercise in the aging process since the early 1990s.

“With aging, we see clear deficits in muscle function and bone health,” he says. “That all can be slowed, attenuated, or reversed with appropriate exercise.”

His concept of “appropriate” has changed a lot in the past 3 decades. “When I first started studying this stuff, we would try to give people a very formalized prescription” for strength training, he says.

That strength-training prescription typically included a lot of sets (three per exercise), moderate reps (8-12 per set), and relatively heavy weights. It also required professional supervision in a well-equipped gym, which was both unappealing and impractical for most of the target population.

“What I’ve learned is that even lower-intensity strength training, at home, without a lot of specialized equipment, has some benefits,” he says.

Which benefits? That’s harder to say.

The research linking resistance exercise to lower mortality comes from large, population-wide surveys, looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. The broad category of “muscle-strengthening exercises” can include anything from calisthenics in the living room to a serious bodybuilding or power-lifting program.

They’re also based on self-reporting by the people studied. Because of that, “we should be careful how we interpret some of these studies,” Dr. Fielding says.
 

How much strength training should you do?

That warning seems especially appropriate for the study’s most surprising conclusion: The maximum longevity benefit comes from one or two resistance exercise sessions a week totaling 30-60 minutes.

The study adds that it’s unclear why more strength training would have diminishing or even negative returns.

Robert Linkul, owner of Training the Older Adult in Shingle Springs, Calif., thinks the answer is perfectly clear.

“Less might be more for the beginning lifter,” he says. That’s why his new clients typically begin with two 50-minute workouts a week. But after 3 months, they need to train three times a week to continue seeing gains.

He currently has 14 clients who have been with him at least 16 years. Most of them started in their 50s and are now in their 60s or 70s. If there were any downside to working out more than two times a week, he’s pretty sure he would’ve seen it by now.
 

Live longer and move longer, too

Mr. Linkul says that his training program includes a lot more than lifting. Clients start each workout with 10-15 minutes of mobility and warm-up exercises. That’s followed by 15 minutes of strength training and 15 minutes of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

HIRT uses functional exercises – lifting and carrying dumbbells or kettlebells; pushing or pulling a weighted sled – to improve strength and endurance at the same time.

“Most of the clients I get are training for real-life function,” Mr. Linkul says.

Falling is one of their biggest concerns, and for good reason: According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second-leading cause of unintentional injury–related deaths worldwide, behind only traffic accidents.

Their other major concern is losing their independence, which often follows a fall. “They want to feel they’re not near using a cane or a walker or being stuck in a wheelchair,” he says. “The more we train, the further we get from that.”

That’s where strength training offers its most unique advantages, according to a 2019 study from researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Resistance exercise is “particularly potent for maintaining mobility in older adults,” the study says.
 

Training for life

Traditional aerobic exercise also offers many of the same benefits, including longer life and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes.

But there’s no need to choose one or the other. As a recent study) noted, combining aerobic and strength exercises leads to a lower risk of early death than either of them separately.

Which makes perfect sense to Dr. Fielding.

“Usually, people who’re physically active aren’t just doing strength training alone,” he says. “Some exercise is better than no exercise,” and more is usually better than less. “People have to find things they like to do and want to do and are able to do consistently.”

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

A dolutegravir-based treatment regimen holds its own as a first choice of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for pregnant individuals, based on data from more than 1,200 patients.

“Dolutegravir is increasingly used in pregnancy in the United States,” Kunjal Patel, DSc, one of the investigators, said in an interview. “While its effectiveness and safety in pregnancy have been compared to efavirenz in previous studies, including three randomized trials, efavirenz isn’t really used in the United States and Europe for treatment of HIV; it is mainly used in Africa,” she said. Therefore, it was important to compare dolutegravir use in pregnancy to the other antiretroviral regimens that are listed as being preferred for use in pregnancy in the U.S., including atazanavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ritonavir, and raltegravir, and others often used in the U.S. and Europe, she said.

In the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Patel, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from kids enrolled in the Surveillance and Monitoring for ART Toxicities Dynamic (SMARTT) cohort. This group is part of an ongoing research project focused on evaluating ART toxicities during pregnancy in children who were exposed to HIV perinatally but not infected. It included pregnancies from 2007 until January 2020 that involved use of the ARTs listed.

The study population of 1,257 pregnancies with observed birth outcomes included 120 individuals with an initial ART of dolutegravir (DTG), 464 started on atazanavir–ritonavir (ATV/r), 185 on darunavir–ritonavir (DRV/r), 243 on oral rilpivirine (RPV), 86 on raltegravir (RAL), and 159 on elvitegravir–cobicistat (EVG/c). In approximately half of the pregnancies (51%), ART was started before conception, and the initial ART was changed in 27%.

The primary outcomes were viral suppression at delivery, and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm and very preterm birth, low and very low birth weight, and neonatal death within 14 days.

The median age of the patients at conception was 29 years, and 66% were non-Hispanic Black, representative of persons with HIV of childbearing age in the United States, the researchers noted. Overall, 96.7% of the patients who received dolutegravir showed viral suppression at delivery, compared to 90.1% for darunavir–ritonavir, 89.8% for elvitegravir–cobicistat, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 84.0% for atazanavir–ritonavir.

“We expected that dolutegravir to be similar with regards to viral suppression at delivery compared to raltegravir so were surprised that we observed less viral suppression with raltegravir compared to dolutegravir,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Our results may be due to the higher pill burden and lower barrier to resistance with RAL compared to dolutegravir, but we did not assess adherence or resistance in our study,” she noted.

Across ART regimens, the observed risks of preterm birth ranged from 13.6% to 17.6%, risks of low birth weight ranged from 11.9% to 16.7%, and risks of being small for gestational age ranged from 9.1% to 12.5%. For the composite of any adverse birth outcome and any severe adverse birth outcome, the observed risks ranged from 22.6% to 27.9% and 0% to 4.2%, respectively.

A total of 20 very preterm births, including 15 infants with very low birth weight, occurred across patients receiving all ART regimens, and no neonatal deaths occurred. The researchers found no apparent patterns of differences in the observed risk of adverse birth outcomes across all groups related to the timing of ART initiation in pregnancy, but the risks were greater among those who began the drugs during pregnancy compared to those who began before conception.

“Our results confirm the recommendation of DTG as “preferred” in U.S. perinatal guidelines, and provide evidence suggesting ATV/r and RAL provides lower HIV viral suppression at delivery compared to DTG, and support DRV/r as a reasonable alternative when DTG use is not feasible,” Dr. Patel said in an interview.

“With regards to next steps, we are interested in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based regimens that include tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in our U.S. setting,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on predictors of preterm birth and low birth weight, such as previous preterm birth and prepregnancy body mass index, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate that other common ARTs provide less HIV viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir, with similar adverse birth outcomes; the results also support darunavir–ritonavir as a reasonable alternative when dolutegravir use is not feasible, as it showed the next highest level of viral suppression after dolutegravir, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings fill a key research gap

The current study is important given the limited data on effectiveness and outcomes in pregnancy with the use of contemporary HIV regimens in the United States, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Pregnancy is still among exclusion criteria for most drug studies,” said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the current study. “Dolutegravir-based ART is first line in the U.S. today because of its effectiveness, lower side effects, and higher barrier to resistance; therefore understanding the benefits and birth outcomes in pregnancy is critical,” she explained.

Dr. Badell said she was not surprised by the study findings. “However it is very reassuring to see in a large observational study comparing the dolutegravir regimens to other contemporary regimens in pregnancy, such a high level of viral suppression and no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” she said.

The study findings will impact clinical practice by reaffirming patient counseling regarding the use of dolutegravir in pregnancy, said Dr. Badell. “The use of ART in pregnancy is complex given the number of drug choices, whether the patient was on ART prior to pregnancy or initiated during pregnancy, and the various factors other than ART that affect perinatal outcomes, such as preterm birth and congenital anomalies, she explained.

The finding that the risk of adverse outcomes was higher for those who initiated ART during pregnancy vs. those who were already on ARTs when they became pregnant contradicts some previous research, said Dr. Badell. But this is “reassuring, as we highly recommend ART with viral suppression prior to pregnancy or to start as early as possible in pregnancy.”

Adverse birth outcomes can be affected by many variables such as age, substance abuse, prior adverse birth outcome and other factors, and larger studies that control for these variables will allow better evaluation of the effect of the ART drugs, Dr. Badell added.

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, along with the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; National Institute of Mental Health; National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute through cooperative agreements with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Tulane University School of Medicine.

The researchers and Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A dolutegravir-based treatment regimen holds its own as a first choice of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for pregnant individuals, based on data from more than 1,200 patients.

“Dolutegravir is increasingly used in pregnancy in the United States,” Kunjal Patel, DSc, one of the investigators, said in an interview. “While its effectiveness and safety in pregnancy have been compared to efavirenz in previous studies, including three randomized trials, efavirenz isn’t really used in the United States and Europe for treatment of HIV; it is mainly used in Africa,” she said. Therefore, it was important to compare dolutegravir use in pregnancy to the other antiretroviral regimens that are listed as being preferred for use in pregnancy in the U.S., including atazanavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ritonavir, and raltegravir, and others often used in the U.S. and Europe, she said.

In the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Patel, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from kids enrolled in the Surveillance and Monitoring for ART Toxicities Dynamic (SMARTT) cohort. This group is part of an ongoing research project focused on evaluating ART toxicities during pregnancy in children who were exposed to HIV perinatally but not infected. It included pregnancies from 2007 until January 2020 that involved use of the ARTs listed.

The study population of 1,257 pregnancies with observed birth outcomes included 120 individuals with an initial ART of dolutegravir (DTG), 464 started on atazanavir–ritonavir (ATV/r), 185 on darunavir–ritonavir (DRV/r), 243 on oral rilpivirine (RPV), 86 on raltegravir (RAL), and 159 on elvitegravir–cobicistat (EVG/c). In approximately half of the pregnancies (51%), ART was started before conception, and the initial ART was changed in 27%.

The primary outcomes were viral suppression at delivery, and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm and very preterm birth, low and very low birth weight, and neonatal death within 14 days.

The median age of the patients at conception was 29 years, and 66% were non-Hispanic Black, representative of persons with HIV of childbearing age in the United States, the researchers noted. Overall, 96.7% of the patients who received dolutegravir showed viral suppression at delivery, compared to 90.1% for darunavir–ritonavir, 89.8% for elvitegravir–cobicistat, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 84.0% for atazanavir–ritonavir.

“We expected that dolutegravir to be similar with regards to viral suppression at delivery compared to raltegravir so were surprised that we observed less viral suppression with raltegravir compared to dolutegravir,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Our results may be due to the higher pill burden and lower barrier to resistance with RAL compared to dolutegravir, but we did not assess adherence or resistance in our study,” she noted.

Across ART regimens, the observed risks of preterm birth ranged from 13.6% to 17.6%, risks of low birth weight ranged from 11.9% to 16.7%, and risks of being small for gestational age ranged from 9.1% to 12.5%. For the composite of any adverse birth outcome and any severe adverse birth outcome, the observed risks ranged from 22.6% to 27.9% and 0% to 4.2%, respectively.

A total of 20 very preterm births, including 15 infants with very low birth weight, occurred across patients receiving all ART regimens, and no neonatal deaths occurred. The researchers found no apparent patterns of differences in the observed risk of adverse birth outcomes across all groups related to the timing of ART initiation in pregnancy, but the risks were greater among those who began the drugs during pregnancy compared to those who began before conception.

“Our results confirm the recommendation of DTG as “preferred” in U.S. perinatal guidelines, and provide evidence suggesting ATV/r and RAL provides lower HIV viral suppression at delivery compared to DTG, and support DRV/r as a reasonable alternative when DTG use is not feasible,” Dr. Patel said in an interview.

“With regards to next steps, we are interested in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based regimens that include tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in our U.S. setting,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on predictors of preterm birth and low birth weight, such as previous preterm birth and prepregnancy body mass index, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate that other common ARTs provide less HIV viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir, with similar adverse birth outcomes; the results also support darunavir–ritonavir as a reasonable alternative when dolutegravir use is not feasible, as it showed the next highest level of viral suppression after dolutegravir, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings fill a key research gap

The current study is important given the limited data on effectiveness and outcomes in pregnancy with the use of contemporary HIV regimens in the United States, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Pregnancy is still among exclusion criteria for most drug studies,” said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the current study. “Dolutegravir-based ART is first line in the U.S. today because of its effectiveness, lower side effects, and higher barrier to resistance; therefore understanding the benefits and birth outcomes in pregnancy is critical,” she explained.

Dr. Badell said she was not surprised by the study findings. “However it is very reassuring to see in a large observational study comparing the dolutegravir regimens to other contemporary regimens in pregnancy, such a high level of viral suppression and no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” she said.

The study findings will impact clinical practice by reaffirming patient counseling regarding the use of dolutegravir in pregnancy, said Dr. Badell. “The use of ART in pregnancy is complex given the number of drug choices, whether the patient was on ART prior to pregnancy or initiated during pregnancy, and the various factors other than ART that affect perinatal outcomes, such as preterm birth and congenital anomalies, she explained.

The finding that the risk of adverse outcomes was higher for those who initiated ART during pregnancy vs. those who were already on ARTs when they became pregnant contradicts some previous research, said Dr. Badell. But this is “reassuring, as we highly recommend ART with viral suppression prior to pregnancy or to start as early as possible in pregnancy.”

Adverse birth outcomes can be affected by many variables such as age, substance abuse, prior adverse birth outcome and other factors, and larger studies that control for these variables will allow better evaluation of the effect of the ART drugs, Dr. Badell added.

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, along with the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; National Institute of Mental Health; National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute through cooperative agreements with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Tulane University School of Medicine.

The researchers and Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A dolutegravir-based treatment regimen holds its own as a first choice of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for pregnant individuals, based on data from more than 1,200 patients.

“Dolutegravir is increasingly used in pregnancy in the United States,” Kunjal Patel, DSc, one of the investigators, said in an interview. “While its effectiveness and safety in pregnancy have been compared to efavirenz in previous studies, including three randomized trials, efavirenz isn’t really used in the United States and Europe for treatment of HIV; it is mainly used in Africa,” she said. Therefore, it was important to compare dolutegravir use in pregnancy to the other antiretroviral regimens that are listed as being preferred for use in pregnancy in the U.S., including atazanavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ritonavir, and raltegravir, and others often used in the U.S. and Europe, she said.

In the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Patel, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from kids enrolled in the Surveillance and Monitoring for ART Toxicities Dynamic (SMARTT) cohort. This group is part of an ongoing research project focused on evaluating ART toxicities during pregnancy in children who were exposed to HIV perinatally but not infected. It included pregnancies from 2007 until January 2020 that involved use of the ARTs listed.

The study population of 1,257 pregnancies with observed birth outcomes included 120 individuals with an initial ART of dolutegravir (DTG), 464 started on atazanavir–ritonavir (ATV/r), 185 on darunavir–ritonavir (DRV/r), 243 on oral rilpivirine (RPV), 86 on raltegravir (RAL), and 159 on elvitegravir–cobicistat (EVG/c). In approximately half of the pregnancies (51%), ART was started before conception, and the initial ART was changed in 27%.

The primary outcomes were viral suppression at delivery, and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm and very preterm birth, low and very low birth weight, and neonatal death within 14 days.

The median age of the patients at conception was 29 years, and 66% were non-Hispanic Black, representative of persons with HIV of childbearing age in the United States, the researchers noted. Overall, 96.7% of the patients who received dolutegravir showed viral suppression at delivery, compared to 90.1% for darunavir–ritonavir, 89.8% for elvitegravir–cobicistat, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 84.0% for atazanavir–ritonavir.

“We expected that dolutegravir to be similar with regards to viral suppression at delivery compared to raltegravir so were surprised that we observed less viral suppression with raltegravir compared to dolutegravir,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Our results may be due to the higher pill burden and lower barrier to resistance with RAL compared to dolutegravir, but we did not assess adherence or resistance in our study,” she noted.

Across ART regimens, the observed risks of preterm birth ranged from 13.6% to 17.6%, risks of low birth weight ranged from 11.9% to 16.7%, and risks of being small for gestational age ranged from 9.1% to 12.5%. For the composite of any adverse birth outcome and any severe adverse birth outcome, the observed risks ranged from 22.6% to 27.9% and 0% to 4.2%, respectively.

A total of 20 very preterm births, including 15 infants with very low birth weight, occurred across patients receiving all ART regimens, and no neonatal deaths occurred. The researchers found no apparent patterns of differences in the observed risk of adverse birth outcomes across all groups related to the timing of ART initiation in pregnancy, but the risks were greater among those who began the drugs during pregnancy compared to those who began before conception.

“Our results confirm the recommendation of DTG as “preferred” in U.S. perinatal guidelines, and provide evidence suggesting ATV/r and RAL provides lower HIV viral suppression at delivery compared to DTG, and support DRV/r as a reasonable alternative when DTG use is not feasible,” Dr. Patel said in an interview.

“With regards to next steps, we are interested in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based regimens that include tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in our U.S. setting,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on predictors of preterm birth and low birth weight, such as previous preterm birth and prepregnancy body mass index, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate that other common ARTs provide less HIV viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir, with similar adverse birth outcomes; the results also support darunavir–ritonavir as a reasonable alternative when dolutegravir use is not feasible, as it showed the next highest level of viral suppression after dolutegravir, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings fill a key research gap

The current study is important given the limited data on effectiveness and outcomes in pregnancy with the use of contemporary HIV regimens in the United States, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Pregnancy is still among exclusion criteria for most drug studies,” said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the current study. “Dolutegravir-based ART is first line in the U.S. today because of its effectiveness, lower side effects, and higher barrier to resistance; therefore understanding the benefits and birth outcomes in pregnancy is critical,” she explained.

Dr. Badell said she was not surprised by the study findings. “However it is very reassuring to see in a large observational study comparing the dolutegravir regimens to other contemporary regimens in pregnancy, such a high level of viral suppression and no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” she said.

The study findings will impact clinical practice by reaffirming patient counseling regarding the use of dolutegravir in pregnancy, said Dr. Badell. “The use of ART in pregnancy is complex given the number of drug choices, whether the patient was on ART prior to pregnancy or initiated during pregnancy, and the various factors other than ART that affect perinatal outcomes, such as preterm birth and congenital anomalies, she explained.

The finding that the risk of adverse outcomes was higher for those who initiated ART during pregnancy vs. those who were already on ARTs when they became pregnant contradicts some previous research, said Dr. Badell. But this is “reassuring, as we highly recommend ART with viral suppression prior to pregnancy or to start as early as possible in pregnancy.”

Adverse birth outcomes can be affected by many variables such as age, substance abuse, prior adverse birth outcome and other factors, and larger studies that control for these variables will allow better evaluation of the effect of the ART drugs, Dr. Badell added.

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, along with the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; National Institute of Mental Health; National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute through cooperative agreements with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Tulane University School of Medicine.

The researchers and Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.