Ob.Gyn. News

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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