Ob.Gyn. News

Women who become pregnant during in vitro fertilization (IVF) from previously frozen embryos have a significantly higher chance of developing hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia than do women who become pregnant through natural conception, researchers have found.

The new findings come from a study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. In the study, which will soon be published in Hypertension, researchers analyzed more than 4.5 million pregnancies from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

“Our findings are significant because frozen embryo transfers are increasingly common all over the world, partly due to the elective freezing of all embryos,” said Sindre Hoff Petersen, PhD, a fellow in the department of public health and nursing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, who led the study.

More than 320,000 IVF procedures were performed in the United States in 2020, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of those, more than 123,000 eggs or embryos were frozen for future use.

The use of assisted reproductive technology, which includes IVF, has more than doubled during the past decade, the CDC reports. Roughly 2% of all babies born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology.

Dr. Petersen and his colleagues compared maternal complications in sibling pregnancies. Women who became pregnant following the transfer of a frozen embryo were 74% more likely to develop a hypertensive disorder than women who became pregnant following natural conception (7.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, P < .001). The difference was even higher with respect to sibling births: Women who became pregnant using frozen embryos were 102% more likely than women who became pregnant using natural conception to develop a hypertensive disorder (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI, 1.72-2.39, P < .001).

The researchers found no difference in the risk of hypertensive disorders between women who used fresh embryos during IVF and women who used natural conception (5.9% vs. 4.3%, 95% CI, P = .382).

“When we find that the association between frozen embryo transfer and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy persists in sibling comparisons, we believe we have strong indications that treatment factors might in fact contribute to the higher risk,” Dr. Petersen told this news organization.

Women in the study who became pregnant after natural conception had a 4.3% chance of developing hypertensive disorders. That effect persisted after controlling for maternal body mass index, smoking, and time between deliveries, he said.

The findings can add to discussions between patients and doctors on the potential benefits and harms of freezing embryos on an elective basis if there is no clinical indication, Dr. Petersen said. The frozen method is most often used to transfer a single embryo in order to reduce the incidence of multiple pregnancies, such as twins and triplets, which in turn reduces pregnancy complications.

“The vast majority of IVF pregnancies, including frozen embryo transfer, are healthy and uncomplicated, and both short- and long-term outcomes for both the mother and the children are very reassuring,” Dr. Petersen said.

Women who become pregnant through use of frozen embryos should be more closely monitored for potential hypertensive disorders, although more work is needed to determine the reasons for the association, said Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is something general ob.gyns. need to be aware of, but it’s not clear which subpopulations of patients are going to be affected,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “More investigation is needed to determine if this is caused by the way the uterus is readied for the embryo transfer or if it’s patient population etiology.”

Some studies have suggested that the absence of a hormone-producing cyst, which forms on the ovary during each menstrual cycle, could explain the link between frozen embryo transfer and heightened preeclampsia risk.

Dr. Petersen and Dr. Ginsburg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who become pregnant during in vitro fertilization (IVF) from previously frozen embryos have a significantly higher chance of developing hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia than do women who become pregnant through natural conception, researchers have found.

The new findings come from a study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. In the study, which will soon be published in Hypertension, researchers analyzed more than 4.5 million pregnancies from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

“Our findings are significant because frozen embryo transfers are increasingly common all over the world, partly due to the elective freezing of all embryos,” said Sindre Hoff Petersen, PhD, a fellow in the department of public health and nursing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, who led the study.

More than 320,000 IVF procedures were performed in the United States in 2020, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of those, more than 123,000 eggs or embryos were frozen for future use.

The use of assisted reproductive technology, which includes IVF, has more than doubled during the past decade, the CDC reports. Roughly 2% of all babies born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology.

Dr. Petersen and his colleagues compared maternal complications in sibling pregnancies. Women who became pregnant following the transfer of a frozen embryo were 74% more likely to develop a hypertensive disorder than women who became pregnant following natural conception (7.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, P < .001). The difference was even higher with respect to sibling births: Women who became pregnant using frozen embryos were 102% more likely than women who became pregnant using natural conception to develop a hypertensive disorder (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI, 1.72-2.39, P < .001).

The researchers found no difference in the risk of hypertensive disorders between women who used fresh embryos during IVF and women who used natural conception (5.9% vs. 4.3%, 95% CI, P = .382).

“When we find that the association between frozen embryo transfer and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy persists in sibling comparisons, we believe we have strong indications that treatment factors might in fact contribute to the higher risk,” Dr. Petersen told this news organization.

Women in the study who became pregnant after natural conception had a 4.3% chance of developing hypertensive disorders. That effect persisted after controlling for maternal body mass index, smoking, and time between deliveries, he said.

The findings can add to discussions between patients and doctors on the potential benefits and harms of freezing embryos on an elective basis if there is no clinical indication, Dr. Petersen said. The frozen method is most often used to transfer a single embryo in order to reduce the incidence of multiple pregnancies, such as twins and triplets, which in turn reduces pregnancy complications.

“The vast majority of IVF pregnancies, including frozen embryo transfer, are healthy and uncomplicated, and both short- and long-term outcomes for both the mother and the children are very reassuring,” Dr. Petersen said.

Women who become pregnant through use of frozen embryos should be more closely monitored for potential hypertensive disorders, although more work is needed to determine the reasons for the association, said Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is something general ob.gyns. need to be aware of, but it’s not clear which subpopulations of patients are going to be affected,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “More investigation is needed to determine if this is caused by the way the uterus is readied for the embryo transfer or if it’s patient population etiology.”

Some studies have suggested that the absence of a hormone-producing cyst, which forms on the ovary during each menstrual cycle, could explain the link between frozen embryo transfer and heightened preeclampsia risk.

Dr. Petersen and Dr. Ginsburg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who become pregnant during in vitro fertilization (IVF) from previously frozen embryos have a significantly higher chance of developing hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia than do women who become pregnant through natural conception, researchers have found.

The new findings come from a study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. In the study, which will soon be published in Hypertension, researchers analyzed more than 4.5 million pregnancies from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

“Our findings are significant because frozen embryo transfers are increasingly common all over the world, partly due to the elective freezing of all embryos,” said Sindre Hoff Petersen, PhD, a fellow in the department of public health and nursing at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, who led the study.

More than 320,000 IVF procedures were performed in the United States in 2020, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of those, more than 123,000 eggs or embryos were frozen for future use.

The use of assisted reproductive technology, which includes IVF, has more than doubled during the past decade, the CDC reports. Roughly 2% of all babies born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology.

Dr. Petersen and his colleagues compared maternal complications in sibling pregnancies. Women who became pregnant following the transfer of a frozen embryo were 74% more likely to develop a hypertensive disorder than women who became pregnant following natural conception (7.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, P < .001). The difference was even higher with respect to sibling births: Women who became pregnant using frozen embryos were 102% more likely than women who became pregnant using natural conception to develop a hypertensive disorder (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI, 1.72-2.39, P < .001).

The researchers found no difference in the risk of hypertensive disorders between women who used fresh embryos during IVF and women who used natural conception (5.9% vs. 4.3%, 95% CI, P = .382).

“When we find that the association between frozen embryo transfer and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy persists in sibling comparisons, we believe we have strong indications that treatment factors might in fact contribute to the higher risk,” Dr. Petersen told this news organization.

Women in the study who became pregnant after natural conception had a 4.3% chance of developing hypertensive disorders. That effect persisted after controlling for maternal body mass index, smoking, and time between deliveries, he said.

The findings can add to discussions between patients and doctors on the potential benefits and harms of freezing embryos on an elective basis if there is no clinical indication, Dr. Petersen said. The frozen method is most often used to transfer a single embryo in order to reduce the incidence of multiple pregnancies, such as twins and triplets, which in turn reduces pregnancy complications.

“The vast majority of IVF pregnancies, including frozen embryo transfer, are healthy and uncomplicated, and both short- and long-term outcomes for both the mother and the children are very reassuring,” Dr. Petersen said.

Women who become pregnant through use of frozen embryos should be more closely monitored for potential hypertensive disorders, although more work is needed to determine the reasons for the association, said Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is something general ob.gyns. need to be aware of, but it’s not clear which subpopulations of patients are going to be affected,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “More investigation is needed to determine if this is caused by the way the uterus is readied for the embryo transfer or if it’s patient population etiology.”

Some studies have suggested that the absence of a hormone-producing cyst, which forms on the ovary during each menstrual cycle, could explain the link between frozen embryo transfer and heightened preeclampsia risk.

Dr. Petersen and Dr. Ginsburg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

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

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

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

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

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

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.