Ob.Gyn. News

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly three-quarters of clinicians reported screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but only one-quarter comprehensively identified cardiovascular risk, based on survey data from approximately 1,500 clinicians in the United States.

Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and women with a history of these disorders require cardiovascular risk monitoring during the postpartum period and beyond, wrote Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cardiovascular risk evaluation and lifestyle modification for these individuals, the researchers said.

The most effective management of women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy will likely involve a team effort by primary care, ob.gyns., and cardiologists, but data on clinician screening and referrals are limited, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from a cross-sectional, web-based survey of clinicians practicing in the United States (Fall DocStyles 2020). The study population of 1,502 respondents with complete surveys included 1,000 primary care physicians, 251 ob.gyns., and 251 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. Approximately 60% of the respondents were male, and approximately 65% had been in practice for at least 10 years.

Overall, 73.6% of clinicians reported screening patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The screening rates were highest among ob.gyns. (94.8%).

However, although 93.9% of clinicians overall correctly identified at least one potential risk associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, only 24.8% correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey, the researchers noted.

Screening rates ranged from 49% to 91% for pregnant women, 34%-75% for postpartum women, 26%-61% for nonpregnant reproductive-age women, 20%-45% for perimenopausal or menopausal women, and 1%-4% for others outside of these categories.

The most often–cited barriers to referral were lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%). To improve and facilitate referrals, respondents’ most frequent resource request was for more referral options (42.9%), followed by patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%).

In a multivariate analysis, primary care physicians were more than five times as likely to report not screening patients for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.54); nurse practitioners and physician assistants were more than seven times as likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 7.42).

The researchers also found that clinicians who saw fewer than 80 patients per week were almost twice as likely not to screen for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy than those who saw 110 or more patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.81).

“Beyond the immediate postpartum period, there is a lack of clear guidance on CVD [cardiovascular disease] evaluation and ongoing monitoring in women with history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Recognizing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as a risk factor for CVD may allow clinicians to identify women requiring early evaluation and intervention,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potentially biased estimates of screening practices, and the potential for selection bias because of the convenience sample used to recruit survey participants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of data from several clinician types and the relatively large sample size, and are consistent with those of previous studies, they said. Based on the findings, addressing barriers at both the patient and clinician level and increasing both patient and clinician education about the long-term risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy might increase cardiovascular screening and subsequent referrals, they concluded.
 

More education, improved screening tools needed

“Unfortunately, most CVD risk stratification scores such as the Framingham score do not include pregnancy complications, despite excellent evidence that pregnancy complications increase risk of CVD,” said Catherine M. Albright, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “This is likely because these scores were developed primarily to screen for CVD risk in men. Given the rising incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the clear evidence that this is a risk factor for future CVD, more studies like this one are needed in order to help guide patient and provider education,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the study.

“It is generally well reported within the ob.gyn. literature about the increased lifetime CVD risk related to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and we, as ob.gyns., always ask about pregnancy history because of our specialty, which gives us the opportunity to counsel about future risks,” she said.

“Women’s health [including during pregnancy] has been undervalued and underresearched for a long time,” with limited focus on pregnancy-related issues until recently, Dr. Albright noted. “This is clear in the attitudes and education of the primary care providers in this study,” she said.

A major barrier to screening in clinical practice has been that the standard screening guidelines for CVD (for example, those published by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce) have not included pregnancy history, said Dr. Albright. “Subsequently, these questions are not asked during routine annual visits,” she said. Ideally, “we should be able to leverage the electronic medical record to prompt providers to view a previously recorded pregnancy history or to ask about pregnancy history as a routine part of CVD risk assessment, and, of course, additional education outside of ob.gyn. and cardiology is needed,” she said.

The clinical takeaway from the current study is that “every annual visit with a person who has been pregnant is an opportunity to ask about and document pregnancy history,” Dr. Albright said. “After the completion of childbearing, many patients no longer see an ob.gyn., so other providers need to feel comfortable asking about and counseling about risks related to pregnancy complications,” she added.

“It is clear that adverse pregnancy outcomes pose lifetime health risks,” said Dr. Albright. “We will continue to look into the mechanisms of this through research. However, right now the additional research that is needed is to determine the optimal screening and follow-up for patients with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, as well as to examine how existing CVD-screening algorithms can be modified to include adverse pregnancy outcomes,” she emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

One in four new mothers who are physicians report experiencing postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population, according to new survey findings presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The survey results weren’t all grim. More than three-fourths (78%) of new mothers reported meeting their own breastfeeding goals. Still, Alison Stuebe, MD, director of maternal-fetal medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said the high postpartum depression rates among physicians might be associated with worse patient care.

“Physicians who have had postpartum depression and provide clinical care for children and birthing people can bring their negative experiences to their clinical work, potentially impacting how they counsel and support their patients,” Dr. Stuebe, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

For the study, Emily Eischen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, and her colleagues sought to learn how physicians and physician trainee mothers fared in the face of the unique stressors of their jobs, including “strenuous work hours, pressures to get back to work, and limited maternity leave.”

The researchers recruited 637 physicians and medical students with a singleton pregnancy to respond to a survey adapted largely from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Infant Feeding Practices Study and the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.

Most of the respondents, who were enrolled through social media physician groups and email list-serves, were married non-Hispanic White persons; 71% were practicing or training in pediatrics, family medicine, or obstetrics/gynecology, and 2% were medical students.

Data showed that 25% of participants reported postpartum depression. The highest rates were seen among Hispanic/Latino respondents (31%), Black persons (30%), and non-Hispanic White persons (25%). The lowest rates of postpartum depression were for respondents identifying as Asian (15%).
 

Guilt a driver

Most respondents (80%) with symptoms of postpartum depression attributed their condition to sleep deprivation. Other frequently cited reasons were problems related to infant feeding (44%), lack of adequate maternity leave (41%), and lack of support at work (33%).

“Feeling guilty for not fulfilling work responsibilities, especially for residents, who are in the most difficult time in their careers and have to hand the workload off to others, can be very stressful,” Ms. Eischen said.

Despite the high rates of postpartum depression in the survey, the investigators found that 99% of respondents had initiated breastfeeding, 72% were exclusively breastfeeding, and 78% said they were meeting their personal breastfeeding goals. All of those rates are higher than what is seen in the general population.

Rates of self-reported postpartum depression were higher among those who did not meet their breastfeeding goals than among those who did (36% vs. 23%; P = .003), the researchers found.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, an assistant professor of medicine, USF Health Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the senior author of the study, said the high breastfeeding rates can be attributed partly to an increased appreciation among physicians that lactation and breastfeeding have proven benefits for women and infant health.

“We still have work to do, but at least the journey has started in supporting birthing and lactating physicians,” she said.

However, Dr. Stuebe wondered whether the survey captured a group of respondents more likely to meet breastfeeding goals. She said she was surprised by the high proportion of respondents who did so.

“When surveys are distributed via social media, we don’t have a clear sense of who chooses to participate and who opts out,” she said in an interview. “If the survey was shared through social media groups that focus on supporting breastfeeding among physicians, it could have affected the results.”

No relevant financial relationships have been reported.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of clinicians is hoping to prompt a rethink of how opioids are prescribed to new mothers after cesarean deliveries after finding that sending patients home with smaller prescriptions led to dramatic drops in use of the drugs.

In research scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in San Diego, women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to receive prescriptions for either 10 or 20 oxycodone tablets at discharge. Interim data revealed that not only did 10-tablet prescriptions correlate with significantly less opioid consumption, but 35% of all women left their opioid scripts unfilled.

The results suggest physicians should stop “automatically prescribing opioids for caesarean section patients at discharge and, instead, work on individualized prescribing,” said Amanda Selk, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto, who was not involved with the study.  

“We need to move away from a culture that says a patient can’t be discharged without an opioid prescription,” Dr. Selk said in an interview.

For the study, researchers at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, set out to understand how discharge opioid prescription sizes impact opioid consumption in women who undergo caesarean delivery. Other specialties have found a correlation between the two.

With “no standard dose recommendation for physicians to follow when it came to prescribing opioids for post-cesarean pain management,” they also wanted to help their own clinicians optimize their prescribing, co-investigator Jaclyn Nunziato, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Tech Carilion, told this news organization.

They randomly assigned 134 women undergoing a scheduled cesarean delivery to receive a prescription for 10 or 20 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone at discharge. Most women had one or more previous cesarean deliveries, and none had used opioids in the previous 30 days.

Data from 97 patients presented at the ACOG meeting showed that 35% of women had not filled their opioid prescriptions 6 weeks after surgery. For those who did fill the orders, the average consumption at week 6 of the study was 6.6 tablets in the 10-tablet group and 13.3 tablets in the 20-tablet group (P = .0005), according to the researchers. No patients in either group had requested a refill of their opioid medication.

Despite differences in opioid use, both groups reported similar pain scores throughout the study period, and almost all patients in both groups said they were satisfied with their pain management, the investigators reported.

With an average of 9.2 tablets consumed in the two groups combined, the findings indicate “a standard prescription of 10 tablets may be adequate to manage most patients’ postoperative pain,” Dr. Nunziato said.   

She said she hoped the results help change how physicians view the treatment of post-cesarean pain and also help “break down the stigma that opioids are the best treatment option for patients.”
 

Potential for ‘huge’ benefit

Given the number of cesarean deliveries performed every year in the United States – more than 1.1 million in 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – providing smaller post-cesarean opioid prescriptions would be “hugely beneficial to individual patients and our larger community,” said Robyn Goodrich, a medical student at Virginia Tech and the first author of the study.

“The patient would receive an amount that is adequate for controlling their pain and keeping them comfortable but does not put them at risk of developing tolerance and addiction,” she added. “For the community, it reduces the number of prescription opioids that are left over and may be diverted or misused if not properly disposed of.”

Dr. Selk pointed to her own group’s randomized controlled trial, showing that post-cesarean patients who do not receive opioids for pain while in the hospital also do not ask for opioid prescriptions after discharge and that their pain can be well-managed with acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  

Dr. Selk, Dr. Nunziato, and Ms. Goodrich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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