MDedge ObGyn

[polldaddy:11183184]

[polldaddy:11183184]

[polldaddy:11183184]

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

A prenatal test can accurately detect an incorrect number of chromosomes more quickly and at about one-tenth the cost of current clinical genetic tests, new data suggest.

Aneuploid pregnancies are a major cause of pregnancy loss, developmental delays, and fetal structural abnormalities, so there is high interest in screening options.

Study leader Zev Williams, MD, PhD, professor of women’s health and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues, describe a test they have developed and validated in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The new test is called STORK (Short-Read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) and can be used in doctors’ offices. The test uses a palm-sized, nanopore-based DNA sequencer to examine tissue from miscarriages or from a biopsy of the placenta or in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryo to determine if it has a normal count of chromosomes.

Results can be delivered in 2 hours, the researchers said. Sequencing times and costs range from 10 minutes and $200 for a single sample to 2 hours and less than $50 per sample when 10 samples are tested simultaneously.

The currently available tests and results cost thousands of dollars and results take days to weeks.

”What’s so exciting is that STORK can be used to rapidly assess chromosomal health across all reproductive tissue types,” Dr. Williams said in a press release.

“For those patients who are trying to get pregnant through IVF, the test gives the ability to conceive sooner,“ he said.

IVF embryos are typically biopsied for chromosomal testing on day 5 or 6 and are frozen for weeks until they can be implanted in a woman’s uterus. Freezing may not be necessary with rapid tests, as embryos found normal could be transferred immediately.

Dr. Williams added: “For those who are already pregnant, it gives more time to make important family-planning decisions. For those who have had a miscarriage, it can show why the loss happened so that steps can be taken to prevent future pregnancy losses.”

Existing tests include two main approaches. One is a rapid and target approach, which tests only a limited number of chromosomes and the other is a whole-genome approach, which takes days or weeks to get results and requires sending samples to specialized laboratories.

”The affordability of this [STORK] test also means that individuals who have suffered a miscarriage do not have to wait until a second or third loss before insurance will cover expensive lab tests, leaving many women in the dark and often blaming themselves,” Dr. Williams said.

The researchers used STORK to perform blinded testing using 218 specimens from miscarriage tissue, placenta samples, amniotic fluid, and biopsy specimens from embryos undergoing preimplantation genetic tests for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

They compared the results from STORK with those obtained using standard clinical testing,

For miscarriage tissue samples and placenta and amniotic-fluid samples, STORK results calculated the number of chromosomes “with 100% accuracy (95% confidence intervals, 94.3%-100%, 93.2%-100%, and 92.9%-100%, respectively),” the authors wrote.

For PGT-A samples, STORK results were 98.1% matched (95% CI, 89.7%-100%) with the clinical diagnosis of the embryos, they report.

According to the Columbia University press release, the researchers are waiting for authorization from the New York State Department of Health before the test can be offered to Columbia patients.

Sarah Wernimont, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal physician with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the results “exciting.”

“For patients I care for who have abnormal screening results, there’s the potential to receive diagnostic testing in a much faster way that can help parents make serious decisions about pregnancy care in a more timely fashion,” she said.

She said the quickest test they use in her practice for detection of aneuploidy, the fluorescence in situ hybridization test, takes 3 days to get results and tests only a few chromosomes.

The STORK test, she noted, has the potential to test all the chromosomes.

She said the sample size is small and she would like to see more external validation in a larger population, but “their sensitivity and specificity compared to the current standard seems to be excellent.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Engineering Technology Accelerator at Columbia University and the Wendy and John Havens Innovation fund. Dr. Williams and one study coauthor are inventors on patents filed related to this work. Dr. Wernimont declared no relevant financial relationships.

A prenatal test can accurately detect an incorrect number of chromosomes more quickly and at about one-tenth the cost of current clinical genetic tests, new data suggest.

Aneuploid pregnancies are a major cause of pregnancy loss, developmental delays, and fetal structural abnormalities, so there is high interest in screening options.

Study leader Zev Williams, MD, PhD, professor of women’s health and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues, describe a test they have developed and validated in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The new test is called STORK (Short-Read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) and can be used in doctors’ offices. The test uses a palm-sized, nanopore-based DNA sequencer to examine tissue from miscarriages or from a biopsy of the placenta or in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryo to determine if it has a normal count of chromosomes.

Results can be delivered in 2 hours, the researchers said. Sequencing times and costs range from 10 minutes and $200 for a single sample to 2 hours and less than $50 per sample when 10 samples are tested simultaneously.

The currently available tests and results cost thousands of dollars and results take days to weeks.

”What’s so exciting is that STORK can be used to rapidly assess chromosomal health across all reproductive tissue types,” Dr. Williams said in a press release.

“For those patients who are trying to get pregnant through IVF, the test gives the ability to conceive sooner,“ he said.

IVF embryos are typically biopsied for chromosomal testing on day 5 or 6 and are frozen for weeks until they can be implanted in a woman’s uterus. Freezing may not be necessary with rapid tests, as embryos found normal could be transferred immediately.

Dr. Williams added: “For those who are already pregnant, it gives more time to make important family-planning decisions. For those who have had a miscarriage, it can show why the loss happened so that steps can be taken to prevent future pregnancy losses.”

Existing tests include two main approaches. One is a rapid and target approach, which tests only a limited number of chromosomes and the other is a whole-genome approach, which takes days or weeks to get results and requires sending samples to specialized laboratories.

”The affordability of this [STORK] test also means that individuals who have suffered a miscarriage do not have to wait until a second or third loss before insurance will cover expensive lab tests, leaving many women in the dark and often blaming themselves,” Dr. Williams said.

The researchers used STORK to perform blinded testing using 218 specimens from miscarriage tissue, placenta samples, amniotic fluid, and biopsy specimens from embryos undergoing preimplantation genetic tests for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

They compared the results from STORK with those obtained using standard clinical testing,

For miscarriage tissue samples and placenta and amniotic-fluid samples, STORK results calculated the number of chromosomes “with 100% accuracy (95% confidence intervals, 94.3%-100%, 93.2%-100%, and 92.9%-100%, respectively),” the authors wrote.

For PGT-A samples, STORK results were 98.1% matched (95% CI, 89.7%-100%) with the clinical diagnosis of the embryos, they report.

According to the Columbia University press release, the researchers are waiting for authorization from the New York State Department of Health before the test can be offered to Columbia patients.

Sarah Wernimont, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal physician with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the results “exciting.”

“For patients I care for who have abnormal screening results, there’s the potential to receive diagnostic testing in a much faster way that can help parents make serious decisions about pregnancy care in a more timely fashion,” she said.

She said the quickest test they use in her practice for detection of aneuploidy, the fluorescence in situ hybridization test, takes 3 days to get results and tests only a few chromosomes.

The STORK test, she noted, has the potential to test all the chromosomes.

She said the sample size is small and she would like to see more external validation in a larger population, but “their sensitivity and specificity compared to the current standard seems to be excellent.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Engineering Technology Accelerator at Columbia University and the Wendy and John Havens Innovation fund. Dr. Williams and one study coauthor are inventors on patents filed related to this work. Dr. Wernimont declared no relevant financial relationships.

A prenatal test can accurately detect an incorrect number of chromosomes more quickly and at about one-tenth the cost of current clinical genetic tests, new data suggest.

Aneuploid pregnancies are a major cause of pregnancy loss, developmental delays, and fetal structural abnormalities, so there is high interest in screening options.

Study leader Zev Williams, MD, PhD, professor of women’s health and chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues, describe a test they have developed and validated in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The new test is called STORK (Short-Read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) and can be used in doctors’ offices. The test uses a palm-sized, nanopore-based DNA sequencer to examine tissue from miscarriages or from a biopsy of the placenta or in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryo to determine if it has a normal count of chromosomes.

Results can be delivered in 2 hours, the researchers said. Sequencing times and costs range from 10 minutes and $200 for a single sample to 2 hours and less than $50 per sample when 10 samples are tested simultaneously.

The currently available tests and results cost thousands of dollars and results take days to weeks.

”What’s so exciting is that STORK can be used to rapidly assess chromosomal health across all reproductive tissue types,” Dr. Williams said in a press release.

“For those patients who are trying to get pregnant through IVF, the test gives the ability to conceive sooner,“ he said.

IVF embryos are typically biopsied for chromosomal testing on day 5 or 6 and are frozen for weeks until they can be implanted in a woman’s uterus. Freezing may not be necessary with rapid tests, as embryos found normal could be transferred immediately.

Dr. Williams added: “For those who are already pregnant, it gives more time to make important family-planning decisions. For those who have had a miscarriage, it can show why the loss happened so that steps can be taken to prevent future pregnancy losses.”

Existing tests include two main approaches. One is a rapid and target approach, which tests only a limited number of chromosomes and the other is a whole-genome approach, which takes days or weeks to get results and requires sending samples to specialized laboratories.

”The affordability of this [STORK] test also means that individuals who have suffered a miscarriage do not have to wait until a second or third loss before insurance will cover expensive lab tests, leaving many women in the dark and often blaming themselves,” Dr. Williams said.

The researchers used STORK to perform blinded testing using 218 specimens from miscarriage tissue, placenta samples, amniotic fluid, and biopsy specimens from embryos undergoing preimplantation genetic tests for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

They compared the results from STORK with those obtained using standard clinical testing,

For miscarriage tissue samples and placenta and amniotic-fluid samples, STORK results calculated the number of chromosomes “with 100% accuracy (95% confidence intervals, 94.3%-100%, 93.2%-100%, and 92.9%-100%, respectively),” the authors wrote.

For PGT-A samples, STORK results were 98.1% matched (95% CI, 89.7%-100%) with the clinical diagnosis of the embryos, they report.

According to the Columbia University press release, the researchers are waiting for authorization from the New York State Department of Health before the test can be offered to Columbia patients.

Sarah Wernimont, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal physician with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was not part of the study, said in an interview she found the results “exciting.”

“For patients I care for who have abnormal screening results, there’s the potential to receive diagnostic testing in a much faster way that can help parents make serious decisions about pregnancy care in a more timely fashion,” she said.

She said the quickest test they use in her practice for detection of aneuploidy, the fluorescence in situ hybridization test, takes 3 days to get results and tests only a few chromosomes.

The STORK test, she noted, has the potential to test all the chromosomes.

She said the sample size is small and she would like to see more external validation in a larger population, but “their sensitivity and specificity compared to the current standard seems to be excellent.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Engineering Technology Accelerator at Columbia University and the Wendy and John Havens Innovation fund. Dr. Williams and one study coauthor are inventors on patents filed related to this work. Dr. Wernimont declared no relevant financial relationships.

For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.¹ However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,² there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.

Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.

Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.

The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.¹ However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.

It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.

During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.^1,3

Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.^1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.

Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.

2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.

3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.

4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.

For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.¹ However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,² there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.

Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.

Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.

The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.¹ However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.

It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.

During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.^1,3

Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.^1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.

Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.

2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.

3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.

4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.

For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.¹ However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,² there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.

Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.

Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.

The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.¹ However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.

It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.

During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.^1,3

Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.^1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.

Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.

2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.

3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.

4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

After New York–based yoga instructor Erin Conley’s two sisters gave birth, Ms. Conley suggested a few advanced poses to help strengthen their pelvic floor.

“With one of my sisters, she said, ‘Honestly right now, I just can’t even stand up,’ ” she recalled.

Ms. Conley’s other sister could do slightly more advanced poses – leading Ms. Conley to recognize that after delivery, women’s ability to practice yoga varied widely.

“Post-birth is certainly a progression for each woman,” she said. “You can’t just go into these advance postures.”

Ms. Conley tailored a slow sequence of 30-second poses that each sister could start with, and they eventually reported an improvement of pelvic floor issues. Ms. Conley’s suggestions to her sisters are backed by a small but growing body of research. One study published in August in the journal Urology suggests that yoga may be a way to help treat multiple types of pelvic floor disorders.

More than 1 in 4 women in the United States experience pelvic floor disorders such as bowel or urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, many as a result of giving birth. But less than 15% of these women seek medical treatment for their symptoms, according to Hari Tunuguntla, MD, associate professor of urologic surgery at Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

For those who do seek medical help, many patients have trouble complying with initial lifestyle-based recommendations, such as refraining from drinking caffeinated and carbonated beverages, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

“It requires a lot of persistence and knowledge and compliance,” he said.

Medication and physical therapy are routes doctors can order before considering surgery, but some patients find clinical-based interventions to be costly. The cost of the interventions can add up depending on what a person’s insurance policy covers, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

With those struggles in mind, he and his colleagues set out to study the efficacy of the mobile app Yoga of Immortals, which offers a holistic form of yoga that includes postures, breathing exercises, sound therapy, and meditation.

“It includes sound therapy, summative breathing exercise,” Dr. Tunuguntla said. “These are useful not just for the condition but for general well-being.”

For the study, Dr. Tunuguntla and his colleagues emailed surveys to 420 people between ages 18 and 74 years in 23 countries who reported having any type of urinary incontinence, regardless of severity. The participants, most of whom were women, used the yoga app for 30 minutes a day for 8 weeks.

More than three-quarters of participants reported that the frequency and severity of their incontinence improved after 8 weeks of practice, compared with when they started, without having to visit their health care provider. Most participants also said that they felt “very much better” after 8 weeks, compared with when they began the yoga regimen, the researchers found.

The study did not compare the effectiveness of the approach with other standard treatments for incontinence, like physical therapy, medication, or surgery.

Ms. Conley, an instructor since 2010, said that one of the benefits of yoga is building strength and flexibility slowly and simultaneously. She uses yoga poses that focus less on movement and more on holding positions for longer periods of time.

“I’ll do sequences of a mountain pose with a block to activate the core in the most basic ways and really focus on the breathing,” she said.

Another benefit of slower forms of yoga is that they can help participants become more aware of the structures of their pelvic floor, according to Alison Huang, MD, professor of medicine, urology and epidemiology, and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco.

“In some ways we can think of it as a complementary substitute for rehabilitation therapy,” Dr. Huang said.

Dr. Huang and her colleagues published a short report recently in The Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine, showing that even telehealth-based yoga programs for older women with urinary incontinence can offer an accessible way for women of any background to take advantage of yoga’s benefits.

An estimated 93% of 66 participants who practiced yoga through planned telehealth appointments reported feeling “very or moderately satisfied” with their practice. Dr. Huang said that the study is not yet complete but offers a glimpse into some of the advantages of yoga for women with urinary incontinence.

“Any kind of treatment that relies on intensive one-on-one visits with specialists is going to be harder to access for some women,” Dr. Huang told this news organization. “Yoga is typically practiced in a community setting, outside of traditional health care settings.”

The accessibility of yoga and its community-based practice may help eliminate any obstacles to care and compliance that clinicians like she and Dr. Tunuguntla at times experience. Mounting studies have also indicated that yoga may help improve overall wellness, manage stress, promote healthier eating, and benefit a person’s mental and emotional health.

Despite emerging research on the link between yoga and pelvic floor disorders, Dr. Huang said that it’s still early for clinicians to recommend the exercise form for every patient.

“We just don’t have the [solid] evidence to show your pelvic floor will improve,” she said.

“For any woman who is starting out more sedentary, I think there are benefits to practic[ing] yoga for overall health,” Dr. Huang said. “Most clinicians would say there are opportunities to practice yoga regularly in a way that is safe, with a knowledgeable instructor.”

According to Ms. Conley, yoga is only as beneficial as a person’s level of consistency in the practice.

“The dedication to yoga is your willingness to showing up,” she said. “I think depending on your commitment to the practice, if you’re really committed to the practice – just like you show up to physical therapy every day – you will improve,” said Ms. Conley.

“Being gentle and patient with the process is important too,” she said.

Dr. Tunuguntla and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

After New York–based yoga instructor Erin Conley’s two sisters gave birth, Ms. Conley suggested a few advanced poses to help strengthen their pelvic floor.

“With one of my sisters, she said, ‘Honestly right now, I just can’t even stand up,’ ” she recalled.

Ms. Conley’s other sister could do slightly more advanced poses – leading Ms. Conley to recognize that after delivery, women’s ability to practice yoga varied widely.

“Post-birth is certainly a progression for each woman,” she said. “You can’t just go into these advance postures.”

Ms. Conley tailored a slow sequence of 30-second poses that each sister could start with, and they eventually reported an improvement of pelvic floor issues. Ms. Conley’s suggestions to her sisters are backed by a small but growing body of research. One study published in August in the journal Urology suggests that yoga may be a way to help treat multiple types of pelvic floor disorders.

More than 1 in 4 women in the United States experience pelvic floor disorders such as bowel or urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, many as a result of giving birth. But less than 15% of these women seek medical treatment for their symptoms, according to Hari Tunuguntla, MD, associate professor of urologic surgery at Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

For those who do seek medical help, many patients have trouble complying with initial lifestyle-based recommendations, such as refraining from drinking caffeinated and carbonated beverages, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

“It requires a lot of persistence and knowledge and compliance,” he said.

Medication and physical therapy are routes doctors can order before considering surgery, but some patients find clinical-based interventions to be costly. The cost of the interventions can add up depending on what a person’s insurance policy covers, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

With those struggles in mind, he and his colleagues set out to study the efficacy of the mobile app Yoga of Immortals, which offers a holistic form of yoga that includes postures, breathing exercises, sound therapy, and meditation.

“It includes sound therapy, summative breathing exercise,” Dr. Tunuguntla said. “These are useful not just for the condition but for general well-being.”

For the study, Dr. Tunuguntla and his colleagues emailed surveys to 420 people between ages 18 and 74 years in 23 countries who reported having any type of urinary incontinence, regardless of severity. The participants, most of whom were women, used the yoga app for 30 minutes a day for 8 weeks.

More than three-quarters of participants reported that the frequency and severity of their incontinence improved after 8 weeks of practice, compared with when they started, without having to visit their health care provider. Most participants also said that they felt “very much better” after 8 weeks, compared with when they began the yoga regimen, the researchers found.

The study did not compare the effectiveness of the approach with other standard treatments for incontinence, like physical therapy, medication, or surgery.

Ms. Conley, an instructor since 2010, said that one of the benefits of yoga is building strength and flexibility slowly and simultaneously. She uses yoga poses that focus less on movement and more on holding positions for longer periods of time.

“I’ll do sequences of a mountain pose with a block to activate the core in the most basic ways and really focus on the breathing,” she said.

Another benefit of slower forms of yoga is that they can help participants become more aware of the structures of their pelvic floor, according to Alison Huang, MD, professor of medicine, urology and epidemiology, and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco.

“In some ways we can think of it as a complementary substitute for rehabilitation therapy,” Dr. Huang said.

Dr. Huang and her colleagues published a short report recently in The Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine, showing that even telehealth-based yoga programs for older women with urinary incontinence can offer an accessible way for women of any background to take advantage of yoga’s benefits.

An estimated 93% of 66 participants who practiced yoga through planned telehealth appointments reported feeling “very or moderately satisfied” with their practice. Dr. Huang said that the study is not yet complete but offers a glimpse into some of the advantages of yoga for women with urinary incontinence.

“Any kind of treatment that relies on intensive one-on-one visits with specialists is going to be harder to access for some women,” Dr. Huang told this news organization. “Yoga is typically practiced in a community setting, outside of traditional health care settings.”

The accessibility of yoga and its community-based practice may help eliminate any obstacles to care and compliance that clinicians like she and Dr. Tunuguntla at times experience. Mounting studies have also indicated that yoga may help improve overall wellness, manage stress, promote healthier eating, and benefit a person’s mental and emotional health.

Despite emerging research on the link between yoga and pelvic floor disorders, Dr. Huang said that it’s still early for clinicians to recommend the exercise form for every patient.

“We just don’t have the [solid] evidence to show your pelvic floor will improve,” she said.

“For any woman who is starting out more sedentary, I think there are benefits to practic[ing] yoga for overall health,” Dr. Huang said. “Most clinicians would say there are opportunities to practice yoga regularly in a way that is safe, with a knowledgeable instructor.”

According to Ms. Conley, yoga is only as beneficial as a person’s level of consistency in the practice.

“The dedication to yoga is your willingness to showing up,” she said. “I think depending on your commitment to the practice, if you’re really committed to the practice – just like you show up to physical therapy every day – you will improve,” said Ms. Conley.

“Being gentle and patient with the process is important too,” she said.

Dr. Tunuguntla and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

After New York–based yoga instructor Erin Conley’s two sisters gave birth, Ms. Conley suggested a few advanced poses to help strengthen their pelvic floor.

“With one of my sisters, she said, ‘Honestly right now, I just can’t even stand up,’ ” she recalled.

Ms. Conley’s other sister could do slightly more advanced poses – leading Ms. Conley to recognize that after delivery, women’s ability to practice yoga varied widely.

“Post-birth is certainly a progression for each woman,” she said. “You can’t just go into these advance postures.”

Ms. Conley tailored a slow sequence of 30-second poses that each sister could start with, and they eventually reported an improvement of pelvic floor issues. Ms. Conley’s suggestions to her sisters are backed by a small but growing body of research. One study published in August in the journal Urology suggests that yoga may be a way to help treat multiple types of pelvic floor disorders.

More than 1 in 4 women in the United States experience pelvic floor disorders such as bowel or urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, many as a result of giving birth. But less than 15% of these women seek medical treatment for their symptoms, according to Hari Tunuguntla, MD, associate professor of urologic surgery at Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

For those who do seek medical help, many patients have trouble complying with initial lifestyle-based recommendations, such as refraining from drinking caffeinated and carbonated beverages, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

“It requires a lot of persistence and knowledge and compliance,” he said.

Medication and physical therapy are routes doctors can order before considering surgery, but some patients find clinical-based interventions to be costly. The cost of the interventions can add up depending on what a person’s insurance policy covers, Dr. Tunuguntla said.

With those struggles in mind, he and his colleagues set out to study the efficacy of the mobile app Yoga of Immortals, which offers a holistic form of yoga that includes postures, breathing exercises, sound therapy, and meditation.

“It includes sound therapy, summative breathing exercise,” Dr. Tunuguntla said. “These are useful not just for the condition but for general well-being.”

For the study, Dr. Tunuguntla and his colleagues emailed surveys to 420 people between ages 18 and 74 years in 23 countries who reported having any type of urinary incontinence, regardless of severity. The participants, most of whom were women, used the yoga app for 30 minutes a day for 8 weeks.

More than three-quarters of participants reported that the frequency and severity of their incontinence improved after 8 weeks of practice, compared with when they started, without having to visit their health care provider. Most participants also said that they felt “very much better” after 8 weeks, compared with when they began the yoga regimen, the researchers found.

The study did not compare the effectiveness of the approach with other standard treatments for incontinence, like physical therapy, medication, or surgery.

Ms. Conley, an instructor since 2010, said that one of the benefits of yoga is building strength and flexibility slowly and simultaneously. She uses yoga poses that focus less on movement and more on holding positions for longer periods of time.

“I’ll do sequences of a mountain pose with a block to activate the core in the most basic ways and really focus on the breathing,” she said.

Another benefit of slower forms of yoga is that they can help participants become more aware of the structures of their pelvic floor, according to Alison Huang, MD, professor of medicine, urology and epidemiology, and biostatistics at University of California, San Francisco.

“In some ways we can think of it as a complementary substitute for rehabilitation therapy,” Dr. Huang said.

Dr. Huang and her colleagues published a short report recently in The Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine, showing that even telehealth-based yoga programs for older women with urinary incontinence can offer an accessible way for women of any background to take advantage of yoga’s benefits.

An estimated 93% of 66 participants who practiced yoga through planned telehealth appointments reported feeling “very or moderately satisfied” with their practice. Dr. Huang said that the study is not yet complete but offers a glimpse into some of the advantages of yoga for women with urinary incontinence.

“Any kind of treatment that relies on intensive one-on-one visits with specialists is going to be harder to access for some women,” Dr. Huang told this news organization. “Yoga is typically practiced in a community setting, outside of traditional health care settings.”

The accessibility of yoga and its community-based practice may help eliminate any obstacles to care and compliance that clinicians like she and Dr. Tunuguntla at times experience. Mounting studies have also indicated that yoga may help improve overall wellness, manage stress, promote healthier eating, and benefit a person’s mental and emotional health.

Despite emerging research on the link between yoga and pelvic floor disorders, Dr. Huang said that it’s still early for clinicians to recommend the exercise form for every patient.

“We just don’t have the [solid] evidence to show your pelvic floor will improve,” she said.

“For any woman who is starting out more sedentary, I think there are benefits to practic[ing] yoga for overall health,” Dr. Huang said. “Most clinicians would say there are opportunities to practice yoga regularly in a way that is safe, with a knowledgeable instructor.”

According to Ms. Conley, yoga is only as beneficial as a person’s level of consistency in the practice.

“The dedication to yoga is your willingness to showing up,” she said. “I think depending on your commitment to the practice, if you’re really committed to the practice – just like you show up to physical therapy every day – you will improve,” said Ms. Conley.

“Being gentle and patient with the process is important too,” she said.

Dr. Tunuguntla and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.