User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Fibroids: Is surgery the only management approach?
Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.
Background
Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.
The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.
Fibroids and fertility
Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).
Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
Treatment options – medical
Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).
When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).
Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.
Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
Treatment options – surgical
Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.
Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).
The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
Noninvasive treatment modalities
Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).
Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
Conclusion
The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at [email protected].
Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.
Background
Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.
The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.
Fibroids and fertility
Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).
Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
Treatment options – medical
Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).
When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).
Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.
Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
Treatment options – surgical
Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.
Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).
The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
Noninvasive treatment modalities
Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).
Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
Conclusion
The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at [email protected].
Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.
Background
Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.
The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.
Fibroids and fertility
Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).
Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
Treatment options – medical
Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).
When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).
Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.
Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
Treatment options – surgical
Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.
Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).
The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
Noninvasive treatment modalities
Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).
Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
Conclusion
The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at [email protected].
Hematologic cancer increases risk of delivery complications
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.
The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.
“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”
However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.
“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”
Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.
Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.
“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”
The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.
Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.
For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.
“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.
Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.
Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.
“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”
Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
Lucid abductions and Candy Crush addiction
I dream of alien abductions
There he goes! It’s lunchtime and your colleague Tom is going on and on again about that time he was abducted by aliens. It sounds ridiculous, but he does make some convincing arguments. Tom thinks it was real, but could it have all just been in his head?
Lucid dreaming may help explain alleged alien abductions. During a lucid dream, people know that they’re dreaming, and can also have some control over how the dreams play out. During some dream states, a person can feel intense sensations, such as terror and paralysis, so it’s no wonder these dreams feel so real.
In a recent study, scientists encouraged 152 participants who had self-identified as lucid dreamers to dream about aliens. Many (75%) of the participants were able to dream about alien encounters, and 15% “achieved relatively realistic experiences,” the investigators reported.
So cut Tom some slack. He’s not crazy, he might just have lucid dreaming privileges. Tell him he should dream about something more fun, like a vacation in the Bahamas.
Follow your heart: Drink more coffee
It seems like the world is divided into coffee drinkers and non–coffee drinkers. Then there’s decaf and regular drinkers. Whichever camp you fall into, know this: The widespread belief that caffeine consumption has an effect on your heart is all beans.
In what is the largest investigation of its kind, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, looked into whether drinking caffeinated coffee was linked to a risk for heart arrhythmia. They also researched whether patients with genetic variants that affect their metabolism could change that association. Almost 400,000 people with a mean age of 56 years participated in the study. More than half of the participants were women.
The investigators analyzed the participants’ self-reported coffee consumption using a technique called Mendelian randomization to leverage genetic data with the participants’ relationship with caffeine, making it an even field and not relying on the participant consumption self-reporting for outcomes as in previous studies.
What they found, after the 4-year follow up, was nothing short of myth busting.
“We found no evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” said senior and corresponding author Gregory Marcus, MD. “Our population-based study provides reassurance that common prohibitions against caffeine to reduce arrhythmia risk are likely unwarranted.”
There was no evidence of a heightened risk of arrhythmias in participants who were genetically predisposed to metabolize caffeine differently from those who were not. And, there was a 3% reduction of arrhythmias in patients who consumed higher amounts of coffee.
We are not lobbying for Big Caffeine, but this study adds to the reported health benefits linked to coffee, which already include reduced risk for cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease, with an added bonus of anti-inflammatory benefits. So, the next time you’re hesitant to pour that second cup of Joe, just go for it. Your heart can take it.
Bored? Feeling down? Don’t play Candy Crush
Now hang on, aren’t those the perfect times to play video games? If there’s nothing else to do, why not open Candy Crush and mindlessly power through the levels?
Because, according to a study by a group of Canadian researchers, it’s actually the worst thing you can do. Well, maybe not literally, but it’s not helpful. Researchers recruited 60 Candy Crush players who were at various levels in the game. They had the participants play early levels that were far too easy or levels balanced with their gameplay abilities.
Players in the easy-level group got bored and quit far earlier than did those in the advanced-level group. The group playing to their abilities were able to access a “flow” state and focus all their attention on the game. While this is all well and good for their gaming performance, according to the researchers, it confirms the theory that playing to escape boredom or negative emotions is more likely to lead to addiction. As with all addictions, the temporary high can give way to a self-repeating loop, causing patients to ignore real life and deepen depression.
The researchers hope their findings will encourage game developers to “consider implementing responsible video gaming tools directly within their games.” Comedy gold. Perhaps Canadians’ idea of capitalism is a little different from that of those south of the border.
Hiccups and vaccine refusal
Tonight, LOTME News dives into the fetid cesspool that is international politics and comes out with … hiccups?
But first, a word from our sponsor, Fearless Boxing Club of South Etobicoke, Ontario.
Are you looking to flout public health restrictions? Do you want to spend time in an enclosed space with other people who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine? Do you “feel safer waiting until more research is done on the side effects being discovered right now”? (We are not making this up.)
Then join the Fearless Boxing Club, because we “will not be accepting any vaccinated members.” Our founders, Mohammed Abedeen and Krystal Glazier-Roscoe, are working hard to exclude “those who received the experimental COVID vaccine.” (Still not making it up.)
And now, back to the news.
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was hospitalized recently for a severe case of hiccups that may have been related to a stab wound he received in 2018. [Nope, didn’t make that up, either.]
Mr. Bolsonaro had been hiccuping for 10 days, and was experiencing abdominal pain and difficulty speaking, when he entered the hospital on July 14. Since being stabbed while on the campaign trail, he has undergone several operations, which may have led to the partial intestinal obstruction that caused his latest symptoms.
His medical team advised Mr. Bolsonaro to go on a diet to aid his recovery, but when he was released on July 18 he said, “I hope in 10 days I’ll be eating barbecued ribs.” (Maybe this is all just a lucid dream. Probably shouldn’t have had ribs right before bed.)
I dream of alien abductions
There he goes! It’s lunchtime and your colleague Tom is going on and on again about that time he was abducted by aliens. It sounds ridiculous, but he does make some convincing arguments. Tom thinks it was real, but could it have all just been in his head?
Lucid dreaming may help explain alleged alien abductions. During a lucid dream, people know that they’re dreaming, and can also have some control over how the dreams play out. During some dream states, a person can feel intense sensations, such as terror and paralysis, so it’s no wonder these dreams feel so real.
In a recent study, scientists encouraged 152 participants who had self-identified as lucid dreamers to dream about aliens. Many (75%) of the participants were able to dream about alien encounters, and 15% “achieved relatively realistic experiences,” the investigators reported.
So cut Tom some slack. He’s not crazy, he might just have lucid dreaming privileges. Tell him he should dream about something more fun, like a vacation in the Bahamas.
Follow your heart: Drink more coffee
It seems like the world is divided into coffee drinkers and non–coffee drinkers. Then there’s decaf and regular drinkers. Whichever camp you fall into, know this: The widespread belief that caffeine consumption has an effect on your heart is all beans.
In what is the largest investigation of its kind, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, looked into whether drinking caffeinated coffee was linked to a risk for heart arrhythmia. They also researched whether patients with genetic variants that affect their metabolism could change that association. Almost 400,000 people with a mean age of 56 years participated in the study. More than half of the participants were women.
The investigators analyzed the participants’ self-reported coffee consumption using a technique called Mendelian randomization to leverage genetic data with the participants’ relationship with caffeine, making it an even field and not relying on the participant consumption self-reporting for outcomes as in previous studies.
What they found, after the 4-year follow up, was nothing short of myth busting.
“We found no evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” said senior and corresponding author Gregory Marcus, MD. “Our population-based study provides reassurance that common prohibitions against caffeine to reduce arrhythmia risk are likely unwarranted.”
There was no evidence of a heightened risk of arrhythmias in participants who were genetically predisposed to metabolize caffeine differently from those who were not. And, there was a 3% reduction of arrhythmias in patients who consumed higher amounts of coffee.
We are not lobbying for Big Caffeine, but this study adds to the reported health benefits linked to coffee, which already include reduced risk for cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease, with an added bonus of anti-inflammatory benefits. So, the next time you’re hesitant to pour that second cup of Joe, just go for it. Your heart can take it.
Bored? Feeling down? Don’t play Candy Crush
Now hang on, aren’t those the perfect times to play video games? If there’s nothing else to do, why not open Candy Crush and mindlessly power through the levels?
Because, according to a study by a group of Canadian researchers, it’s actually the worst thing you can do. Well, maybe not literally, but it’s not helpful. Researchers recruited 60 Candy Crush players who were at various levels in the game. They had the participants play early levels that were far too easy or levels balanced with their gameplay abilities.
Players in the easy-level group got bored and quit far earlier than did those in the advanced-level group. The group playing to their abilities were able to access a “flow” state and focus all their attention on the game. While this is all well and good for their gaming performance, according to the researchers, it confirms the theory that playing to escape boredom or negative emotions is more likely to lead to addiction. As with all addictions, the temporary high can give way to a self-repeating loop, causing patients to ignore real life and deepen depression.
The researchers hope their findings will encourage game developers to “consider implementing responsible video gaming tools directly within their games.” Comedy gold. Perhaps Canadians’ idea of capitalism is a little different from that of those south of the border.
Hiccups and vaccine refusal
Tonight, LOTME News dives into the fetid cesspool that is international politics and comes out with … hiccups?
But first, a word from our sponsor, Fearless Boxing Club of South Etobicoke, Ontario.
Are you looking to flout public health restrictions? Do you want to spend time in an enclosed space with other people who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine? Do you “feel safer waiting until more research is done on the side effects being discovered right now”? (We are not making this up.)
Then join the Fearless Boxing Club, because we “will not be accepting any vaccinated members.” Our founders, Mohammed Abedeen and Krystal Glazier-Roscoe, are working hard to exclude “those who received the experimental COVID vaccine.” (Still not making it up.)
And now, back to the news.
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was hospitalized recently for a severe case of hiccups that may have been related to a stab wound he received in 2018. [Nope, didn’t make that up, either.]
Mr. Bolsonaro had been hiccuping for 10 days, and was experiencing abdominal pain and difficulty speaking, when he entered the hospital on July 14. Since being stabbed while on the campaign trail, he has undergone several operations, which may have led to the partial intestinal obstruction that caused his latest symptoms.
His medical team advised Mr. Bolsonaro to go on a diet to aid his recovery, but when he was released on July 18 he said, “I hope in 10 days I’ll be eating barbecued ribs.” (Maybe this is all just a lucid dream. Probably shouldn’t have had ribs right before bed.)
I dream of alien abductions
There he goes! It’s lunchtime and your colleague Tom is going on and on again about that time he was abducted by aliens. It sounds ridiculous, but he does make some convincing arguments. Tom thinks it was real, but could it have all just been in his head?
Lucid dreaming may help explain alleged alien abductions. During a lucid dream, people know that they’re dreaming, and can also have some control over how the dreams play out. During some dream states, a person can feel intense sensations, such as terror and paralysis, so it’s no wonder these dreams feel so real.
In a recent study, scientists encouraged 152 participants who had self-identified as lucid dreamers to dream about aliens. Many (75%) of the participants were able to dream about alien encounters, and 15% “achieved relatively realistic experiences,” the investigators reported.
So cut Tom some slack. He’s not crazy, he might just have lucid dreaming privileges. Tell him he should dream about something more fun, like a vacation in the Bahamas.
Follow your heart: Drink more coffee
It seems like the world is divided into coffee drinkers and non–coffee drinkers. Then there’s decaf and regular drinkers. Whichever camp you fall into, know this: The widespread belief that caffeine consumption has an effect on your heart is all beans.
In what is the largest investigation of its kind, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, looked into whether drinking caffeinated coffee was linked to a risk for heart arrhythmia. They also researched whether patients with genetic variants that affect their metabolism could change that association. Almost 400,000 people with a mean age of 56 years participated in the study. More than half of the participants were women.
The investigators analyzed the participants’ self-reported coffee consumption using a technique called Mendelian randomization to leverage genetic data with the participants’ relationship with caffeine, making it an even field and not relying on the participant consumption self-reporting for outcomes as in previous studies.
What they found, after the 4-year follow up, was nothing short of myth busting.
“We found no evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias,” said senior and corresponding author Gregory Marcus, MD. “Our population-based study provides reassurance that common prohibitions against caffeine to reduce arrhythmia risk are likely unwarranted.”
There was no evidence of a heightened risk of arrhythmias in participants who were genetically predisposed to metabolize caffeine differently from those who were not. And, there was a 3% reduction of arrhythmias in patients who consumed higher amounts of coffee.
We are not lobbying for Big Caffeine, but this study adds to the reported health benefits linked to coffee, which already include reduced risk for cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease, with an added bonus of anti-inflammatory benefits. So, the next time you’re hesitant to pour that second cup of Joe, just go for it. Your heart can take it.
Bored? Feeling down? Don’t play Candy Crush
Now hang on, aren’t those the perfect times to play video games? If there’s nothing else to do, why not open Candy Crush and mindlessly power through the levels?
Because, according to a study by a group of Canadian researchers, it’s actually the worst thing you can do. Well, maybe not literally, but it’s not helpful. Researchers recruited 60 Candy Crush players who were at various levels in the game. They had the participants play early levels that were far too easy or levels balanced with their gameplay abilities.
Players in the easy-level group got bored and quit far earlier than did those in the advanced-level group. The group playing to their abilities were able to access a “flow” state and focus all their attention on the game. While this is all well and good for their gaming performance, according to the researchers, it confirms the theory that playing to escape boredom or negative emotions is more likely to lead to addiction. As with all addictions, the temporary high can give way to a self-repeating loop, causing patients to ignore real life and deepen depression.
The researchers hope their findings will encourage game developers to “consider implementing responsible video gaming tools directly within their games.” Comedy gold. Perhaps Canadians’ idea of capitalism is a little different from that of those south of the border.
Hiccups and vaccine refusal
Tonight, LOTME News dives into the fetid cesspool that is international politics and comes out with … hiccups?
But first, a word from our sponsor, Fearless Boxing Club of South Etobicoke, Ontario.
Are you looking to flout public health restrictions? Do you want to spend time in an enclosed space with other people who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine? Do you “feel safer waiting until more research is done on the side effects being discovered right now”? (We are not making this up.)
Then join the Fearless Boxing Club, because we “will not be accepting any vaccinated members.” Our founders, Mohammed Abedeen and Krystal Glazier-Roscoe, are working hard to exclude “those who received the experimental COVID vaccine.” (Still not making it up.)
And now, back to the news.
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was hospitalized recently for a severe case of hiccups that may have been related to a stab wound he received in 2018. [Nope, didn’t make that up, either.]
Mr. Bolsonaro had been hiccuping for 10 days, and was experiencing abdominal pain and difficulty speaking, when he entered the hospital on July 14. Since being stabbed while on the campaign trail, he has undergone several operations, which may have led to the partial intestinal obstruction that caused his latest symptoms.
His medical team advised Mr. Bolsonaro to go on a diet to aid his recovery, but when he was released on July 18 he said, “I hope in 10 days I’ll be eating barbecued ribs.” (Maybe this is all just a lucid dream. Probably shouldn’t have had ribs right before bed.)
Statins again linked to lower COVID-19 mortality
Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.
Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.
The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.
While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.
“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”
After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.
“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.
“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.
The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.
For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.
Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).
Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.
Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).
Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).
In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
Stabilizing the underlying disease
The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.
“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.
They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”
She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
‘Important clinical implications’
The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”
They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.
“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.
Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.
“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
‘Provocative but not definitive’
Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”
He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”
Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”
The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.
Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.
Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.
The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.
While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.
“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”
After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.
“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.
“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.
The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.
For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.
Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).
Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.
Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).
Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).
In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
Stabilizing the underlying disease
The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.
“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.
They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”
She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
‘Important clinical implications’
The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”
They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.
“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.
Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.
“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
‘Provocative but not definitive’
Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”
He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”
Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”
The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.
Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.
Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.
The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.
While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.
“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”
After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.
“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.
“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.
The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.
For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.
Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).
Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.
Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).
Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).
In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
Stabilizing the underlying disease
The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.
“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.
They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”
She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
‘Important clinical implications’
The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”
They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.
“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.
Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.
“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
‘Provocative but not definitive’
Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”
He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”
Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”
The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.
FROM PLOS ONE
‘Dealing with a different beast’: Why Delta has doctors worried
Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.
“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.
Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.
Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again.
Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.
“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.
Where Delta goes, death follows
Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.
, which was first identified in the United Kingdom).
Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.
“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.
Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated.
“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.
In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.
Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.
Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.
“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.
Enhanced virus
The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.
It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.
This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.
Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.
“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.
Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.
And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case.
China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected.
Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.
This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days.
When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.
This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.
And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.
This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.
Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.
Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.
“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.
Escape artist
Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.
This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization.
After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.
Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.
“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.
“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”
The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.
A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.
Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus.
As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.
German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.
They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.
Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.
“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.
“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.
Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.
Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again.
Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.
“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.
Where Delta goes, death follows
Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.
, which was first identified in the United Kingdom).
Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.
“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.
Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated.
“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.
In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.
Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.
Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.
“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.
Enhanced virus
The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.
It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.
This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.
Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.
“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.
Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.
And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case.
China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected.
Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.
This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days.
When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.
This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.
And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.
This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.
Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.
Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.
“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.
Escape artist
Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.
This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization.
After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.
Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.
“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.
“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”
The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.
A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.
Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus.
As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.
German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.
They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.
Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.
“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.
“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.
Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.
Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again.
Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.
“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.
Where Delta goes, death follows
Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.
, which was first identified in the United Kingdom).
Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.
“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.
Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated.
“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.
In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.
Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.
Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.
“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.
Enhanced virus
The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.
It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.
This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.
Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.
“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.
Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.
And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case.
China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected.
Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.
This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days.
When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.
This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.
And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.
This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.
Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.
Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.
“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.
Escape artist
Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.
This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization.
After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.
Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.
“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.
“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”
The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.
A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.
Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus.
As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.
German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.
They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.
Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.
“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Grandmothers, the Friendship Bench, and wisdom
Is this model a blueprint for delivering mental health care?
The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.
“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.
“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.
“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.
“You first,” he says.
“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”
“Nanna and Papa.”
“Do you miss Papa?”
“Yes.”
“It has been a whole year since he died.”
“A long, long time.”
“He loved you very much.”
“Yes,” the boy replies.
“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”
The boy nods.
They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.
“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
The Friendship Bench
It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.
Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”3 Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
Why grandmothers?
Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.5
Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,7 suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.8 Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.9
Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.
In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.10 Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.11 Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.
Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.12
Are there ‘grandparent genes?’
Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.13 While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?
When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.14 Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”15 Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.16 A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.
Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.
Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.
2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.
3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.
4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.
5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.
7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.
8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.
9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.
10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.
11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.
12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.
13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.
14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.
15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.
16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.
Is this model a blueprint for delivering mental health care?
Is this model a blueprint for delivering mental health care?
The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.
“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.
“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.
“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.
“You first,” he says.
“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”
“Nanna and Papa.”
“Do you miss Papa?”
“Yes.”
“It has been a whole year since he died.”
“A long, long time.”
“He loved you very much.”
“Yes,” the boy replies.
“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”
The boy nods.
They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.
“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
The Friendship Bench
It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.
Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”3 Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
Why grandmothers?
Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.5
Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,7 suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.8 Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.9
Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.
In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.10 Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.11 Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.
Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.12
Are there ‘grandparent genes?’
Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.13 While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?
When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.14 Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”15 Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.16 A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.
Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.
Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.
2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.
3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.
4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.
5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.
7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.
8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.
9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.
10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.
11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.
12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.
13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.
14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.
15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.
16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.
The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.
“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.
“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.
“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.
“You first,” he says.
“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”
“Nanna and Papa.”
“Do you miss Papa?”
“Yes.”
“It has been a whole year since he died.”
“A long, long time.”
“He loved you very much.”
“Yes,” the boy replies.
“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”
The boy nods.
They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.
“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
The Friendship Bench
It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.
Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”3 Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
Why grandmothers?
Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.5
Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,7 suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.8 Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.9
Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.
In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.10 Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.11 Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.
Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.12
Are there ‘grandparent genes?’
Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.13 While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?
When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.14 Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”15 Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.16 A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.
Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.
Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.
2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.
3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.
4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.
5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.
7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.
8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.
9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.
10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.
11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.
12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.
13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.
14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.
15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.
16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.
FDA to revise statin pregnancy contraindication
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.
“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”
The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.
Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.
“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”
The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.
Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.
“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”
The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.
Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vertebral fractures still a risk with low-dose oral glucocorticoids for RA
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
FROM RHEUMATOLOGY
Socioeconomic disparities persist in hysterectomy access
Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.
“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.
Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.
The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).
A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.
The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).
Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.
However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”
Explore range of issues to improve access
“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.
“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.
“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”
The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.
“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.
Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.
The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).
A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.
The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).
Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.
However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”
Explore range of issues to improve access
“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.
“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.
“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”
The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.
“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.
Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.
In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.
The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).
A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.
The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).
Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.
However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”
Explore range of issues to improve access
“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.
“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.
“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”
The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
‘I did nothing wrong’: MDs used their own sperm for fertility patients
Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.
All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.
“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”
Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?
The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
Lack of training and lots of secrecy
Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?
At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.
“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.
Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.
“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”
The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”
Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
How they were found out
When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.
Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.
As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.
The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.
But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
How often did it happen?
Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.
“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”
Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.
Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.
“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”
Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.
Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.
In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction
Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.
None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”
When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.
The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.
Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
Was it really ethically wrong?
Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”
The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.
However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”
Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”
When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.
Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.
“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.
Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”
Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”
“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”
Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.
The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.
Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.
It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”
Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.
All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.
“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”
Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?
The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
Lack of training and lots of secrecy
Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?
At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.
“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.
Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.
“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”
The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”
Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
How they were found out
When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.
Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.
As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.
The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.
But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
How often did it happen?
Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.
“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”
Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.
Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.
“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”
Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.
Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.
In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction
Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.
None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”
When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.
The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.
Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
Was it really ethically wrong?
Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”
The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.
However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”
Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”
When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.
Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.
“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.
Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”
Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”
“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”
Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.
The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.
Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.
It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”
Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.
All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.
“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”
Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?
The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
Lack of training and lots of secrecy
Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?
At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.
“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.
Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.
“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”
The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”
Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
How they were found out
When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.
Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.
As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.
The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.
But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
How often did it happen?
Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.
“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”
Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.
Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.
“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”
Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.
Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.
In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction
Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.
None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”
When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.
The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.
Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
Was it really ethically wrong?
Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”
The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.
However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”
Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”
When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.
Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.
“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.
Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”
Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”
“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”
Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.
The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.
Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.
It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”
Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.