Ob.Gyn. News

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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

A new type of electrode made from sugar could help doctors and researchers more effectively monitor contractions during preterm labor, a condition that precedes almost half of preterm births and is the leading cause of U.S. neonatal deaths.

The sensors, developed by engineers at the McKelvey School of Engineering at Washington University, St. Louis, could help us understand why some patients experience preterm labor, improve medical interventions, and save lives. In the experiment, the researchers built an array of the new electrodes and successfully tested it on a pregnant person in a lab.

The goal is a home-monitoring belt that is comfortable enough for patients to wear and accurate enough to be clinically useful. Built off a framework of sugar and conductive polymers, the thin electrodes have a sponge-like quality that allows them to hold more gel than standard electrodes, measure for 3 hours instead of 1, and resist artifacts created by patient movement. When tested on a pregnant woman, the new electrodes picked up clean signals even when the patient moved, said electrical engineer and article co-author Chuan Wang, PhD.

There is current technology that exists to monitor and map contractions during early labor, but the tests require hundreds of wire electrodes. Patients must sit still for half an hour while the electrodes are applied, then remain immobile for the test itself, which has a high sensitivity to movement.

“It’s very uncomfortable. In the clinical setting, the recording typically lasts for 15 minutes to half an hour. During that time, doctors want the patient to be still,” said Dr. Wang. “If the patient has to move, it’s going to introduce some artifacts, which is going to ruin the imaging process.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues wanted to develop an inexpensive new electrode that would be more comfortable for patients to wear for longer periods of time, yet sensitive enough to detect electrical signals in the body during preterm labor.

To do this, they used sugar structures to create a pliable electrode with a spongy structure. The new electrodes have micropores that hold conductive gel, increasing the amount of electrified surface area touching the skin.

“With the porous structure, we are effectively increasing the area by many, many times,” Dr. Wang said. “Because all those voids also contact the skin, increasing the contact area can boost the strength of the signal.”

With conventional electrodes, the gel dries quickly on the flat surface, causing signal quality to plummet. But the new electrodes can be used for “many hours” before drying out, according to Dr. Wang.

Additionally, the soft material of the new electrode acts “like a buffer” that absorbs motion and prevents the electrode from sliding around, according to Dr. Wang. That means patients can move while wearing the spongy electrodes without disturbing the recording of electrical signals in the body.
 

From sugar cube to spongy electrode

To create the new electrode, the researchers began by molding sugar into an electrode-shaped template. The template was then dipped into a liquid polymer, which oozed in between the grains of sugar. Next, the template underwent oven curing, emerging as a solid yet spongy structure. Hot water was then applied to dissolve the sugar.

The sugar structure is useful here because of the negative space around the grains, which is filled by the polymer – and then because of the negative space left when the sugar dissolves.

“When the sugar grains are removed, that’s where the pores are located,” Dr. Wang explained.

The sponge surface was then converted from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, thanks to an oxygen plasma treatment. Next, the sponge was blanketed in a layer of conductive polymer – a liquid that Dr. Wang likens to black ink – transforming it into an electrode. (Without the oxygen plasma step, the sponge wouldn’t have absorbed the conductive material.) After another oven-curing session, the device was affixed with wires and ready to be used.

The researchers are continuing to refine the concept and hope to develop a wireless wearable device with many spongy electrodes that record signals simultaneously – and that patients can use at home.

In addition to monitoring maternal and fetal health during labor, the researchers say the belt-like device could be used for other types of imaging and diagnosis.

“Depending on the scenario, different signals can be recorded,” Dr. Wang said. “It could be an EMG for a pregnant woman, or an ECG for an athlete or a patient with chronic cardiovascular disease that needs monitoring.”

This work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-005417, INV-035476). The authors acknowledge the Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Materials Science and Engineering for the use of instruments and staff assistance.

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

A new type of electrode made from sugar could help doctors and researchers more effectively monitor contractions during preterm labor, a condition that precedes almost half of preterm births and is the leading cause of U.S. neonatal deaths.

The sensors, developed by engineers at the McKelvey School of Engineering at Washington University, St. Louis, could help us understand why some patients experience preterm labor, improve medical interventions, and save lives. In the experiment, the researchers built an array of the new electrodes and successfully tested it on a pregnant person in a lab.

The goal is a home-monitoring belt that is comfortable enough for patients to wear and accurate enough to be clinically useful. Built off a framework of sugar and conductive polymers, the thin electrodes have a sponge-like quality that allows them to hold more gel than standard electrodes, measure for 3 hours instead of 1, and resist artifacts created by patient movement. When tested on a pregnant woman, the new electrodes picked up clean signals even when the patient moved, said electrical engineer and article co-author Chuan Wang, PhD.

There is current technology that exists to monitor and map contractions during early labor, but the tests require hundreds of wire electrodes. Patients must sit still for half an hour while the electrodes are applied, then remain immobile for the test itself, which has a high sensitivity to movement.

“It’s very uncomfortable. In the clinical setting, the recording typically lasts for 15 minutes to half an hour. During that time, doctors want the patient to be still,” said Dr. Wang. “If the patient has to move, it’s going to introduce some artifacts, which is going to ruin the imaging process.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues wanted to develop an inexpensive new electrode that would be more comfortable for patients to wear for longer periods of time, yet sensitive enough to detect electrical signals in the body during preterm labor.

To do this, they used sugar structures to create a pliable electrode with a spongy structure. The new electrodes have micropores that hold conductive gel, increasing the amount of electrified surface area touching the skin.

“With the porous structure, we are effectively increasing the area by many, many times,” Dr. Wang said. “Because all those voids also contact the skin, increasing the contact area can boost the strength of the signal.”

With conventional electrodes, the gel dries quickly on the flat surface, causing signal quality to plummet. But the new electrodes can be used for “many hours” before drying out, according to Dr. Wang.

Additionally, the soft material of the new electrode acts “like a buffer” that absorbs motion and prevents the electrode from sliding around, according to Dr. Wang. That means patients can move while wearing the spongy electrodes without disturbing the recording of electrical signals in the body.
 

From sugar cube to spongy electrode

To create the new electrode, the researchers began by molding sugar into an electrode-shaped template. The template was then dipped into a liquid polymer, which oozed in between the grains of sugar. Next, the template underwent oven curing, emerging as a solid yet spongy structure. Hot water was then applied to dissolve the sugar.

The sugar structure is useful here because of the negative space around the grains, which is filled by the polymer – and then because of the negative space left when the sugar dissolves.

“When the sugar grains are removed, that’s where the pores are located,” Dr. Wang explained.

The sponge surface was then converted from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, thanks to an oxygen plasma treatment. Next, the sponge was blanketed in a layer of conductive polymer – a liquid that Dr. Wang likens to black ink – transforming it into an electrode. (Without the oxygen plasma step, the sponge wouldn’t have absorbed the conductive material.) After another oven-curing session, the device was affixed with wires and ready to be used.

The researchers are continuing to refine the concept and hope to develop a wireless wearable device with many spongy electrodes that record signals simultaneously – and that patients can use at home.

In addition to monitoring maternal and fetal health during labor, the researchers say the belt-like device could be used for other types of imaging and diagnosis.

“Depending on the scenario, different signals can be recorded,” Dr. Wang said. “It could be an EMG for a pregnant woman, or an ECG for an athlete or a patient with chronic cardiovascular disease that needs monitoring.”

This work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-005417, INV-035476). The authors acknowledge the Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Materials Science and Engineering for the use of instruments and staff assistance.

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

A new type of electrode made from sugar could help doctors and researchers more effectively monitor contractions during preterm labor, a condition that precedes almost half of preterm births and is the leading cause of U.S. neonatal deaths.

The sensors, developed by engineers at the McKelvey School of Engineering at Washington University, St. Louis, could help us understand why some patients experience preterm labor, improve medical interventions, and save lives. In the experiment, the researchers built an array of the new electrodes and successfully tested it on a pregnant person in a lab.

The goal is a home-monitoring belt that is comfortable enough for patients to wear and accurate enough to be clinically useful. Built off a framework of sugar and conductive polymers, the thin electrodes have a sponge-like quality that allows them to hold more gel than standard electrodes, measure for 3 hours instead of 1, and resist artifacts created by patient movement. When tested on a pregnant woman, the new electrodes picked up clean signals even when the patient moved, said electrical engineer and article co-author Chuan Wang, PhD.

There is current technology that exists to monitor and map contractions during early labor, but the tests require hundreds of wire electrodes. Patients must sit still for half an hour while the electrodes are applied, then remain immobile for the test itself, which has a high sensitivity to movement.

“It’s very uncomfortable. In the clinical setting, the recording typically lasts for 15 minutes to half an hour. During that time, doctors want the patient to be still,” said Dr. Wang. “If the patient has to move, it’s going to introduce some artifacts, which is going to ruin the imaging process.”

Dr. Wang and colleagues wanted to develop an inexpensive new electrode that would be more comfortable for patients to wear for longer periods of time, yet sensitive enough to detect electrical signals in the body during preterm labor.

To do this, they used sugar structures to create a pliable electrode with a spongy structure. The new electrodes have micropores that hold conductive gel, increasing the amount of electrified surface area touching the skin.

“With the porous structure, we are effectively increasing the area by many, many times,” Dr. Wang said. “Because all those voids also contact the skin, increasing the contact area can boost the strength of the signal.”

With conventional electrodes, the gel dries quickly on the flat surface, causing signal quality to plummet. But the new electrodes can be used for “many hours” before drying out, according to Dr. Wang.

Additionally, the soft material of the new electrode acts “like a buffer” that absorbs motion and prevents the electrode from sliding around, according to Dr. Wang. That means patients can move while wearing the spongy electrodes without disturbing the recording of electrical signals in the body.
 

From sugar cube to spongy electrode

To create the new electrode, the researchers began by molding sugar into an electrode-shaped template. The template was then dipped into a liquid polymer, which oozed in between the grains of sugar. Next, the template underwent oven curing, emerging as a solid yet spongy structure. Hot water was then applied to dissolve the sugar.

The sugar structure is useful here because of the negative space around the grains, which is filled by the polymer – and then because of the negative space left when the sugar dissolves.

“When the sugar grains are removed, that’s where the pores are located,” Dr. Wang explained.

The sponge surface was then converted from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, thanks to an oxygen plasma treatment. Next, the sponge was blanketed in a layer of conductive polymer – a liquid that Dr. Wang likens to black ink – transforming it into an electrode. (Without the oxygen plasma step, the sponge wouldn’t have absorbed the conductive material.) After another oven-curing session, the device was affixed with wires and ready to be used.

The researchers are continuing to refine the concept and hope to develop a wireless wearable device with many spongy electrodes that record signals simultaneously – and that patients can use at home.

In addition to monitoring maternal and fetal health during labor, the researchers say the belt-like device could be used for other types of imaging and diagnosis.

“Depending on the scenario, different signals can be recorded,” Dr. Wang said. “It could be an EMG for a pregnant woman, or an ECG for an athlete or a patient with chronic cardiovascular disease that needs monitoring.”

This work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-005417, INV-035476). The authors acknowledge the Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Materials Science and Engineering for the use of instruments and staff assistance.

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

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”