Ob.Gyn. News

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

In a unique Zoom conference, a number of detransitioners enumerated the ways they said the medical establishment initially failed them when they transitioned to the opposite gender, and again, when they decided to go back to their natal gender.

The forum was convened on what was dubbed #DetransitionAwarenessDay by Genspect, a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups.

“Affirmative” medical care is defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those with gender dysphoria to transition to the opposite sex and is often followed by gender reassignment surgery. However, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed for those under aged 18, in particular, with several countries pulling back on medical treatment and instead emphasizing psychotherapy first.

The purpose of the second annual Genspect meeting was to shed light on the experiences of individuals who have detransitioned – those that identified as transgender and transitioned, but then decided to end their medical transition. People logged on from all over the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Chile, and Brazil, among other countries.

“This is a minority within a minority,” said Genspect advisor Stella O’Malley, adding that the first meeting in 2021 was held because “too many people were dismissing the stories of the detransitioners.” Ms. O’Malley is a psychotherapist, a clinical advisor to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners.

“It’s become blindingly obvious over the last year that ... ‘detrans’ is a huge part of the trans phenomenon,” said Ms. O’Malley, adding that detransitioners have been “undermined and dismissed.”

Laura Edwards-Leeper, PhD (@DrLauraEL), a prominent gender therapist who has recently expressed concern regarding adequate gatekeeping when treating youth with gender dysphoria, agreed.

She tweeted: “You simply can’t call yourself a legit gender provider if you don’t believe that detransitioners exist. As part of the informed consent process for transitioning, it is unethical to not discuss this possibility with young people.” Dr. Edwards-Leeper is professor emeritus at Pacific University in Hillsboro, Ore.

Speakers in the forum largely offered experiences, not data. They pointed out that there has been little to no study of detransition, but all testified that it was less rare than it has been portrayed by the transgender community.
 

Struggles with going back

“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”

Carol (@sourpatches2077) said she knew for a year that her transition had been a mistake.

“The biggest part was I couldn’t tell my family,” said Carol, who identifies as a lesbian. “I put them through so much. It seems ridiculous to go: ‘Oops, I made this huge [expletive] mistake,’ ” she said, describing the moment she did tell them as “devastating.”

Grace (@hormonehangover) said she remembers finally hitting a moment of “undeniability” some years after transitioning. “I accept it, I’ve ruined my life, this is wrong,” she remembers thinking. “It was devastating, but I couldn’t deny it anymore.” 

Don’t trust therapists

People experiencing feelings of unease “need a therapist who will listen to them,” said Ms. Watson. When she first detransitioned, her therapists treated her badly. “They just didn’t want to speak about detransition,” she said, adding that “it was like a kick in the stomach.”

Ms. Watson said she’d like to see more training about detransition, but also on “preventative techniques,” adding that many people transition who should not. “I don’t want more detransitioners – I want less.

“In order for that to happen, we need to treat people with gender dysphoria properly,” said Ms. Watson, adding that the affirmative model is “disgusting, and that’s what needs to change.”

“I would tell somebody to not go to a therapist,” said Carol. Identifying as a butch lesbian, she felt like her therapists had pushed her into transitioning to male. “The No. 1 thing not understood by the mental health professionals is that the vast majority of homosexuals were gender-nonconforming children.” She added that this is especially true of butch lesbians.

Therapists – and doctors – also need to acknowledge both the trauma of transition and detransition, she said.

Kaiser, where she had transitioned, offered her breast reconstruction. Carol said it felt demeaning. “Like you’re Mr. Potatohead: ‘Here, we can just ... put on some new parts and you’re good to go.’ ”

“Doctors are concretizing transient obsessions,” said Helena Kerschner (@lacroicsz), quoting a chatroom user.

Ms. Kerschner gave a presentation on “fandom”: becoming obsessed with a movie, book, TV show, musician, or celebrity, spending every waking hour chatting online or writing fan fiction, or attempting to interact with the celebrity online. It’s a fantasy-dominated world and “the vast majority” of participants are teenage girls who are “identifying as trans,” in part, because they are fed a community-reinforced message that it’s better to be a boy.  

Therapists and physicians who help them transition “are harming them for life based on something they would have grown out of or overcome without the permanent damage,” Ms. Kerschner added.

 

Doctors ‘gaslighting’ people into believing that transition is the answer

A pervasive theme during the webinar was that many people are being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria, which may not be resolved by medical transition.

Allie, a 22-year-old who stopped taking testosterone after 1½ years, said she initially started the transition to male when she gave up trying to figure out why she could not identify with, or befriend, women, and after a childhood and adolescence spent mostly in the company of boys and being more interested in traditionally male activities.

She endured sexual abuse as a teenager and her parents divorced while she was in high school. Allie also had multiple suicide attempts and many incidents of self-harm. When she decided to transition, at age 18, she went to a private clinic and received cross-sex hormones within a few months of her first and only 30-minute consultation. “There was no explorative therapy,” she said, adding that she was never given a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

For the first year, she said she was “over the freaking moon” because she felt like it was the answer. But things started to unravel while she attended university, and she attempted suicide attempt at age 20. A social worker at the school identified her symptoms – which had been the same since childhood – as autism. She then decided to cease her transition.

Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, said it took 5 years after her transition to recognize that she had undiagnosed PTSD from emotional and psychiatric abuse. Despite a history of substance abuse, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health issues, she was given testosterone and had a double mastectomy at age 20. She became fixated on gay men, which devolved into a methamphetamine- and crack-fueled relationship with a man she met on the gay dating platform Grindr.

“No one around me knew any better or knew how to help, including the medical professionals who performed the mastectomy and who casually signed off and administered my medical transition,” she said.

Once she was aware of her PTSD she started to detransition, which itself was traumatic, said Laura.

Limpida, aged 24, said he felt pushed into transitioning after seeking help at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He identified as trans at age 15 and spent years attempting to be a woman socially, but every step made him feel more miserable, he said. When he went to the clinic at age 21 to get estrogen, he said he felt like the staff was dismissive of his mental health concerns – including that he was suicidal, had substance abuse, and was severely depressed. He was told he was the “perfect candidate” for transitioning.

A year later, he said he felt worse. The nurse suggested he seek out surgery. After Limpida researched what was involved, he decided to detransition. He has since received an autism diagnosis.

Robin, also aged 24, said the idea of surgery had helped push him into detransitioning, which began in 2020 after 4 years of estrogen. He said he had always been gender nonconforming and knew he was gay at an early age. He believes that gender-nonconforming people are “gaslighted” into thinking that transitioning is the answer.
 

Lack of evidence-based, informed consent

Michelle Alleva, who stopped identifying as transgender in 2020 but had ceased testosterone 4 years earlier because of side effects, cited what she called a lack of evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of medical transitions.

“You need to have a really, really good evidence base in place if you’re going straight to an invasive treatment that is going to cause permanent changes to your body,” she said.

Access to medical transition used to involve more “gatekeeping” through mental health evaluations and other interventions, she said, but there has been a shift from treating what was considered a psychiatric issue to essentially affirming an identity.

“This shift was activist driven, not evidence based,” she emphasized.

Most studies showing satisfaction with transition only involve a few years of follow-up, she said. She added that the longest follow-up study of transition, published in 2011 and spanning 30 years, showed that the suicide rate 10-15 years post surgery was 20 times higher than the general population.

Studies of regret were primarily conducted before the rapid increase in the number of trans-identifying individuals, she said, which makes it hard to draw conclusions about pediatric transition. Getting estimates on this population is difficult because so many who detransition do not tell their clinicians, and many studies have short follow-up times or a high loss to follow-up.

Ms. Alleva also took issue with the notion that physicians were offering true informed consent, noting that it’s not possible to know if someone is psychologically sound if they haven’t had a thorough mental health evaluation and that there are so many unknowns with medical transition, including that many of the therapies are not approved for the uses being employed.

With regret on the rise, “we need professionals that are prepared for detransitioners,” said Ms. Alleva. “Some of us have lost trust in health care professionals as a result of our experience.”

“It’s a huge feeling of institutional betrayal,” said Grace.

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

In a unique Zoom conference, a number of detransitioners enumerated the ways they said the medical establishment initially failed them when they transitioned to the opposite gender, and again, when they decided to go back to their natal gender.

The forum was convened on what was dubbed #DetransitionAwarenessDay by Genspect, a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups.

“Affirmative” medical care is defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those with gender dysphoria to transition to the opposite sex and is often followed by gender reassignment surgery. However, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed for those under aged 18, in particular, with several countries pulling back on medical treatment and instead emphasizing psychotherapy first.

The purpose of the second annual Genspect meeting was to shed light on the experiences of individuals who have detransitioned – those that identified as transgender and transitioned, but then decided to end their medical transition. People logged on from all over the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Chile, and Brazil, among other countries.

“This is a minority within a minority,” said Genspect advisor Stella O’Malley, adding that the first meeting in 2021 was held because “too many people were dismissing the stories of the detransitioners.” Ms. O’Malley is a psychotherapist, a clinical advisor to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners.

“It’s become blindingly obvious over the last year that ... ‘detrans’ is a huge part of the trans phenomenon,” said Ms. O’Malley, adding that detransitioners have been “undermined and dismissed.”

Laura Edwards-Leeper, PhD (@DrLauraEL), a prominent gender therapist who has recently expressed concern regarding adequate gatekeeping when treating youth with gender dysphoria, agreed.

She tweeted: “You simply can’t call yourself a legit gender provider if you don’t believe that detransitioners exist. As part of the informed consent process for transitioning, it is unethical to not discuss this possibility with young people.” Dr. Edwards-Leeper is professor emeritus at Pacific University in Hillsboro, Ore.

Speakers in the forum largely offered experiences, not data. They pointed out that there has been little to no study of detransition, but all testified that it was less rare than it has been portrayed by the transgender community.
 

Struggles with going back

“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”

Carol (@sourpatches2077) said she knew for a year that her transition had been a mistake.

“The biggest part was I couldn’t tell my family,” said Carol, who identifies as a lesbian. “I put them through so much. It seems ridiculous to go: ‘Oops, I made this huge [expletive] mistake,’ ” she said, describing the moment she did tell them as “devastating.”

Grace (@hormonehangover) said she remembers finally hitting a moment of “undeniability” some years after transitioning. “I accept it, I’ve ruined my life, this is wrong,” she remembers thinking. “It was devastating, but I couldn’t deny it anymore.” 

Don’t trust therapists

People experiencing feelings of unease “need a therapist who will listen to them,” said Ms. Watson. When she first detransitioned, her therapists treated her badly. “They just didn’t want to speak about detransition,” she said, adding that “it was like a kick in the stomach.”

Ms. Watson said she’d like to see more training about detransition, but also on “preventative techniques,” adding that many people transition who should not. “I don’t want more detransitioners – I want less.

“In order for that to happen, we need to treat people with gender dysphoria properly,” said Ms. Watson, adding that the affirmative model is “disgusting, and that’s what needs to change.”

“I would tell somebody to not go to a therapist,” said Carol. Identifying as a butch lesbian, she felt like her therapists had pushed her into transitioning to male. “The No. 1 thing not understood by the mental health professionals is that the vast majority of homosexuals were gender-nonconforming children.” She added that this is especially true of butch lesbians.

Therapists – and doctors – also need to acknowledge both the trauma of transition and detransition, she said.

Kaiser, where she had transitioned, offered her breast reconstruction. Carol said it felt demeaning. “Like you’re Mr. Potatohead: ‘Here, we can just ... put on some new parts and you’re good to go.’ ”

“Doctors are concretizing transient obsessions,” said Helena Kerschner (@lacroicsz), quoting a chatroom user.

Ms. Kerschner gave a presentation on “fandom”: becoming obsessed with a movie, book, TV show, musician, or celebrity, spending every waking hour chatting online or writing fan fiction, or attempting to interact with the celebrity online. It’s a fantasy-dominated world and “the vast majority” of participants are teenage girls who are “identifying as trans,” in part, because they are fed a community-reinforced message that it’s better to be a boy.  

Therapists and physicians who help them transition “are harming them for life based on something they would have grown out of or overcome without the permanent damage,” Ms. Kerschner added.

 

Doctors ‘gaslighting’ people into believing that transition is the answer

A pervasive theme during the webinar was that many people are being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria, which may not be resolved by medical transition.

Allie, a 22-year-old who stopped taking testosterone after 1½ years, said she initially started the transition to male when she gave up trying to figure out why she could not identify with, or befriend, women, and after a childhood and adolescence spent mostly in the company of boys and being more interested in traditionally male activities.

She endured sexual abuse as a teenager and her parents divorced while she was in high school. Allie also had multiple suicide attempts and many incidents of self-harm. When she decided to transition, at age 18, she went to a private clinic and received cross-sex hormones within a few months of her first and only 30-minute consultation. “There was no explorative therapy,” she said, adding that she was never given a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

For the first year, she said she was “over the freaking moon” because she felt like it was the answer. But things started to unravel while she attended university, and she attempted suicide attempt at age 20. A social worker at the school identified her symptoms – which had been the same since childhood – as autism. She then decided to cease her transition.

Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, said it took 5 years after her transition to recognize that she had undiagnosed PTSD from emotional and psychiatric abuse. Despite a history of substance abuse, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health issues, she was given testosterone and had a double mastectomy at age 20. She became fixated on gay men, which devolved into a methamphetamine- and crack-fueled relationship with a man she met on the gay dating platform Grindr.

“No one around me knew any better or knew how to help, including the medical professionals who performed the mastectomy and who casually signed off and administered my medical transition,” she said.

Once she was aware of her PTSD she started to detransition, which itself was traumatic, said Laura.

Limpida, aged 24, said he felt pushed into transitioning after seeking help at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He identified as trans at age 15 and spent years attempting to be a woman socially, but every step made him feel more miserable, he said. When he went to the clinic at age 21 to get estrogen, he said he felt like the staff was dismissive of his mental health concerns – including that he was suicidal, had substance abuse, and was severely depressed. He was told he was the “perfect candidate” for transitioning.

A year later, he said he felt worse. The nurse suggested he seek out surgery. After Limpida researched what was involved, he decided to detransition. He has since received an autism diagnosis.

Robin, also aged 24, said the idea of surgery had helped push him into detransitioning, which began in 2020 after 4 years of estrogen. He said he had always been gender nonconforming and knew he was gay at an early age. He believes that gender-nonconforming people are “gaslighted” into thinking that transitioning is the answer.
 

Lack of evidence-based, informed consent

Michelle Alleva, who stopped identifying as transgender in 2020 but had ceased testosterone 4 years earlier because of side effects, cited what she called a lack of evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of medical transitions.

“You need to have a really, really good evidence base in place if you’re going straight to an invasive treatment that is going to cause permanent changes to your body,” she said.

Access to medical transition used to involve more “gatekeeping” through mental health evaluations and other interventions, she said, but there has been a shift from treating what was considered a psychiatric issue to essentially affirming an identity.

“This shift was activist driven, not evidence based,” she emphasized.

Most studies showing satisfaction with transition only involve a few years of follow-up, she said. She added that the longest follow-up study of transition, published in 2011 and spanning 30 years, showed that the suicide rate 10-15 years post surgery was 20 times higher than the general population.

Studies of regret were primarily conducted before the rapid increase in the number of trans-identifying individuals, she said, which makes it hard to draw conclusions about pediatric transition. Getting estimates on this population is difficult because so many who detransition do not tell their clinicians, and many studies have short follow-up times or a high loss to follow-up.

Ms. Alleva also took issue with the notion that physicians were offering true informed consent, noting that it’s not possible to know if someone is psychologically sound if they haven’t had a thorough mental health evaluation and that there are so many unknowns with medical transition, including that many of the therapies are not approved for the uses being employed.

With regret on the rise, “we need professionals that are prepared for detransitioners,” said Ms. Alleva. “Some of us have lost trust in health care professionals as a result of our experience.”

“It’s a huge feeling of institutional betrayal,” said Grace.

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

In a unique Zoom conference, a number of detransitioners enumerated the ways they said the medical establishment initially failed them when they transitioned to the opposite gender, and again, when they decided to go back to their natal gender.

The forum was convened on what was dubbed #DetransitionAwarenessDay by Genspect, a parent-based organization that seeks to put the brakes on medical transitions for children and adolescents. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups.

“Affirmative” medical care is defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those with gender dysphoria to transition to the opposite sex and is often followed by gender reassignment surgery. However, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed for those under aged 18, in particular, with several countries pulling back on medical treatment and instead emphasizing psychotherapy first.

The purpose of the second annual Genspect meeting was to shed light on the experiences of individuals who have detransitioned – those that identified as transgender and transitioned, but then decided to end their medical transition. People logged on from all over the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Chile, and Brazil, among other countries.

“This is a minority within a minority,” said Genspect advisor Stella O’Malley, adding that the first meeting in 2021 was held because “too many people were dismissing the stories of the detransitioners.” Ms. O’Malley is a psychotherapist, a clinical advisor to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners.

“It’s become blindingly obvious over the last year that ... ‘detrans’ is a huge part of the trans phenomenon,” said Ms. O’Malley, adding that detransitioners have been “undermined and dismissed.”

Laura Edwards-Leeper, PhD (@DrLauraEL), a prominent gender therapist who has recently expressed concern regarding adequate gatekeeping when treating youth with gender dysphoria, agreed.

She tweeted: “You simply can’t call yourself a legit gender provider if you don’t believe that detransitioners exist. As part of the informed consent process for transitioning, it is unethical to not discuss this possibility with young people.” Dr. Edwards-Leeper is professor emeritus at Pacific University in Hillsboro, Ore.

Speakers in the forum largely offered experiences, not data. They pointed out that there has been little to no study of detransition, but all testified that it was less rare than it has been portrayed by the transgender community.
 

Struggles with going back

“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”

Carol (@sourpatches2077) said she knew for a year that her transition had been a mistake.

“The biggest part was I couldn’t tell my family,” said Carol, who identifies as a lesbian. “I put them through so much. It seems ridiculous to go: ‘Oops, I made this huge [expletive] mistake,’ ” she said, describing the moment she did tell them as “devastating.”

Grace (@hormonehangover) said she remembers finally hitting a moment of “undeniability” some years after transitioning. “I accept it, I’ve ruined my life, this is wrong,” she remembers thinking. “It was devastating, but I couldn’t deny it anymore.” 

Don’t trust therapists

People experiencing feelings of unease “need a therapist who will listen to them,” said Ms. Watson. When she first detransitioned, her therapists treated her badly. “They just didn’t want to speak about detransition,” she said, adding that “it was like a kick in the stomach.”

Ms. Watson said she’d like to see more training about detransition, but also on “preventative techniques,” adding that many people transition who should not. “I don’t want more detransitioners – I want less.

“In order for that to happen, we need to treat people with gender dysphoria properly,” said Ms. Watson, adding that the affirmative model is “disgusting, and that’s what needs to change.”

“I would tell somebody to not go to a therapist,” said Carol. Identifying as a butch lesbian, she felt like her therapists had pushed her into transitioning to male. “The No. 1 thing not understood by the mental health professionals is that the vast majority of homosexuals were gender-nonconforming children.” She added that this is especially true of butch lesbians.

Therapists – and doctors – also need to acknowledge both the trauma of transition and detransition, she said.

Kaiser, where she had transitioned, offered her breast reconstruction. Carol said it felt demeaning. “Like you’re Mr. Potatohead: ‘Here, we can just ... put on some new parts and you’re good to go.’ ”

“Doctors are concretizing transient obsessions,” said Helena Kerschner (@lacroicsz), quoting a chatroom user.

Ms. Kerschner gave a presentation on “fandom”: becoming obsessed with a movie, book, TV show, musician, or celebrity, spending every waking hour chatting online or writing fan fiction, or attempting to interact with the celebrity online. It’s a fantasy-dominated world and “the vast majority” of participants are teenage girls who are “identifying as trans,” in part, because they are fed a community-reinforced message that it’s better to be a boy.  

Therapists and physicians who help them transition “are harming them for life based on something they would have grown out of or overcome without the permanent damage,” Ms. Kerschner added.

 

Doctors ‘gaslighting’ people into believing that transition is the answer

A pervasive theme during the webinar was that many people are being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria, which may not be resolved by medical transition.

Allie, a 22-year-old who stopped taking testosterone after 1½ years, said she initially started the transition to male when she gave up trying to figure out why she could not identify with, or befriend, women, and after a childhood and adolescence spent mostly in the company of boys and being more interested in traditionally male activities.

She endured sexual abuse as a teenager and her parents divorced while she was in high school. Allie also had multiple suicide attempts and many incidents of self-harm. When she decided to transition, at age 18, she went to a private clinic and received cross-sex hormones within a few months of her first and only 30-minute consultation. “There was no explorative therapy,” she said, adding that she was never given a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

For the first year, she said she was “over the freaking moon” because she felt like it was the answer. But things started to unravel while she attended university, and she attempted suicide attempt at age 20. A social worker at the school identified her symptoms – which had been the same since childhood – as autism. She then decided to cease her transition.

Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, said it took 5 years after her transition to recognize that she had undiagnosed PTSD from emotional and psychiatric abuse. Despite a history of substance abuse, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health issues, she was given testosterone and had a double mastectomy at age 20. She became fixated on gay men, which devolved into a methamphetamine- and crack-fueled relationship with a man she met on the gay dating platform Grindr.

“No one around me knew any better or knew how to help, including the medical professionals who performed the mastectomy and who casually signed off and administered my medical transition,” she said.

Once she was aware of her PTSD she started to detransition, which itself was traumatic, said Laura.

Limpida, aged 24, said he felt pushed into transitioning after seeking help at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He identified as trans at age 15 and spent years attempting to be a woman socially, but every step made him feel more miserable, he said. When he went to the clinic at age 21 to get estrogen, he said he felt like the staff was dismissive of his mental health concerns – including that he was suicidal, had substance abuse, and was severely depressed. He was told he was the “perfect candidate” for transitioning.

A year later, he said he felt worse. The nurse suggested he seek out surgery. After Limpida researched what was involved, he decided to detransition. He has since received an autism diagnosis.

Robin, also aged 24, said the idea of surgery had helped push him into detransitioning, which began in 2020 after 4 years of estrogen. He said he had always been gender nonconforming and knew he was gay at an early age. He believes that gender-nonconforming people are “gaslighted” into thinking that transitioning is the answer.
 

Lack of evidence-based, informed consent

Michelle Alleva, who stopped identifying as transgender in 2020 but had ceased testosterone 4 years earlier because of side effects, cited what she called a lack of evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of medical transitions.

“You need to have a really, really good evidence base in place if you’re going straight to an invasive treatment that is going to cause permanent changes to your body,” she said.

Access to medical transition used to involve more “gatekeeping” through mental health evaluations and other interventions, she said, but there has been a shift from treating what was considered a psychiatric issue to essentially affirming an identity.

“This shift was activist driven, not evidence based,” she emphasized.

Most studies showing satisfaction with transition only involve a few years of follow-up, she said. She added that the longest follow-up study of transition, published in 2011 and spanning 30 years, showed that the suicide rate 10-15 years post surgery was 20 times higher than the general population.

Studies of regret were primarily conducted before the rapid increase in the number of trans-identifying individuals, she said, which makes it hard to draw conclusions about pediatric transition. Getting estimates on this population is difficult because so many who detransition do not tell their clinicians, and many studies have short follow-up times or a high loss to follow-up.

Ms. Alleva also took issue with the notion that physicians were offering true informed consent, noting that it’s not possible to know if someone is psychologically sound if they haven’t had a thorough mental health evaluation and that there are so many unknowns with medical transition, including that many of the therapies are not approved for the uses being employed.

With regret on the rise, “we need professionals that are prepared for detransitioners,” said Ms. Alleva. “Some of us have lost trust in health care professionals as a result of our experience.”

“It’s a huge feeling of institutional betrayal,” said Grace.

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

A Pennsylvania physician whose right leg was amputated has filed a medical malpractice suit against his podiatrist, as a story in the Pennsylvania Record, among other news sites, reports.

In December 2020, Mario Adajar, MD, 59, an internist in Wyoming, Penn., sought treatment for his foot calluses and the chronic ulceration of his right foot.

Dr. Adajar consulted a podiatrist, who has surgical privileges at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth Hospital. According to his complaint, Dr. Adajar made the podiatrist aware that he had type 2 diabetes and had recently undergone a kidney transplant.

Over the next several months, Adajar continued to be treated by the podiatrist who, among other things, debrided and cleaned his patient’s ulcerated right foot on multiple occasions. In June 2021, working out of the hospital’s Wound Healing Center, the podiatrist placed Dr. Adajar’s right leg in a total contact cast.

By the following day, the patient experienced what he later described as “excruciating” pain around the cast. He was also running a fever of 102.3. Taken to a local emergency department, Dr. Adajar soon went into septic shock, accompanied by both atrial fibrillation and acute hypoxic respiratory failure.

Doctors soon had a diagnosis: a gram-negative bacilli infection. Meanwhile, his right leg had become severely gangrenous, of the gas gangrene type. Nevertheless, after treatment, Dr. Adajar was discharged on June 15, 2021, and advised to continue with his follow-up, which included a referral to physical therapy. However, on July 27, 2021, doctors at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth were forced to amputate Dr. Adajar’s right leg through the fibula and tibia.

In his suit, Dr. Adajar claims that the decision by the podiatrist and his associates to place him in a total contact cast was the direct and immediate cause of his injuries, most catastrophically the amputation of his right leg. He and his legal team are seeking damages “in excess of $50,000,” the standard language in Pennsylvania for cases likely to involve much larger awards.

Dr. Adajar, despite the loss of his right leg, continues to practice internal medicine.
 

Doctor wins forceps-delivery suit

Last month, a Virginia jury decided in favor of a physician accused of damaging a baby’s eye during delivery, a story in The Winchester Star reports.

In December 2015, Melissa Clements went to Winchester Medical Center, part of Valley Health, to have her baby delivered. Her doctor was ob.gyn. George F. Craft II, at the time a member of Winchester Women’s Specialists. At one point during the roughly 30-minute delivery, Dr. Craft used forceps to remove Ms. Clements’s baby, who in the process sustained facial fractures and left-eye damage.

At trial, Craft argued that a forceps delivery was justified because the baby was stuck and his patient had refused a C-section.

The attorney for the plaintiffs — which included Ms. Clements’s husband — claimed that the use of forceps was premature, as professional guidelines require that a woman in labor be allowed at least 3 hours to push on her own before forceps are employed. (The suit, initially filed in 2019, also accused Dr. Craft of failing to properly inform his patient about the risks of, and alternatives to, this form of delivery. That part of the complaint was dropped, however, prior to the recent trial.)

The jury debated just 50 minutes before deciding Dr. Craft wasn’t medically negligent in the birth of William, Ms. Clements’s now 6-year-old son, who will be forced to wear contact lenses or glasses for life, or undergo corrective surgery.

As Dr. Craft’s attorney explained at trial: “He [Dr. Craft] hoped to give her [Ms. Clements] what she wanted: a vaginal delivery. But forceps techniques can and will cause injuries, even when properly placed.”
 

Unsupervised PAs subject to med-mal cap, state says

The California Supreme Court ruled late last month that even unsupervised physician assistants (PAs) are protected under the state’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, according to a posting on the website of the Claims Journal, among other news sites.

The ruling stems from a 2013 suit filed by Marisol Lopez, who claimed that a dermatologist, a plastic surgeon, and two PAs had misdiagnosed her child’s skin cancer. Ms. Lopez’s child, Olivia Sarinana, died in February 2014, causing her mother to amend her original claim to a wrongful-death suit.

A trial court found both the doctors and the PAs liable for negligence, awarding the plaintiff $11,200 in economic damages and $4.25 million in noneconomic damages. The court subsequently reduced that amount, however, referencing the state’s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, which is part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, known as MICRA.

Ms. Lopez appealed the decision, arguing that the cap shouldn’t apply to the two PAs, because neither was under a physician’s direct supervision and therefore not acting within the proper scope of practice, as defined by state law. Despite agreeing with the factual basis of Ms. Lopez’s claim — that neither PA was being supervised during the period in question — the trial court refused to wave the state cap. Ms. Lopez again appealed, and, in a split decision, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision.

At this point, attorneys for Ms. Lopez applied for, and obtained, a review before the state’s highest court. Last month, the justices weighed in, ruling that the PAs were still entitled to protection under MICRA because they “had valid delegation-of-service agreements in place.” In other words, while the two PAs had not been directly supervised by a physician, their services had been properly delegated by one.

Said Associate Justice Goodwin Liu, who wrote the opinion: “To be sure, there are reasonable policy arguments for excluding physician assistants who perform medical services without actual supervision from a cap on non-economic damages, and the Legislature is well equipped to weigh and reweigh the competing policy considerations. But our role is confined to interpreting the statute before us in the manner that comports most closely with the Legislature’s purpose in enacting MICRA.”

Despite the high-court ruling, voters may soon get a chance to amend the nearly 5-decades-old MICRA legislation. A November ballot initiative would not only adjust the cap for inflation, raising it to more than $1.2 million, but would also permit “judges and juries to waive the cap entirely for cases involving death and permanent disability.”

Medical groups have said that if either or both of these changes happen the cost of healthcare in the Golden State will surely go up.



The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A Pennsylvania physician whose right leg was amputated has filed a medical malpractice suit against his podiatrist, as a story in the Pennsylvania Record, among other news sites, reports.

In December 2020, Mario Adajar, MD, 59, an internist in Wyoming, Penn., sought treatment for his foot calluses and the chronic ulceration of his right foot.

Dr. Adajar consulted a podiatrist, who has surgical privileges at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth Hospital. According to his complaint, Dr. Adajar made the podiatrist aware that he had type 2 diabetes and had recently undergone a kidney transplant.

Over the next several months, Adajar continued to be treated by the podiatrist who, among other things, debrided and cleaned his patient’s ulcerated right foot on multiple occasions. In June 2021, working out of the hospital’s Wound Healing Center, the podiatrist placed Dr. Adajar’s right leg in a total contact cast.

By the following day, the patient experienced what he later described as “excruciating” pain around the cast. He was also running a fever of 102.3. Taken to a local emergency department, Dr. Adajar soon went into septic shock, accompanied by both atrial fibrillation and acute hypoxic respiratory failure.

Doctors soon had a diagnosis: a gram-negative bacilli infection. Meanwhile, his right leg had become severely gangrenous, of the gas gangrene type. Nevertheless, after treatment, Dr. Adajar was discharged on June 15, 2021, and advised to continue with his follow-up, which included a referral to physical therapy. However, on July 27, 2021, doctors at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth were forced to amputate Dr. Adajar’s right leg through the fibula and tibia.

In his suit, Dr. Adajar claims that the decision by the podiatrist and his associates to place him in a total contact cast was the direct and immediate cause of his injuries, most catastrophically the amputation of his right leg. He and his legal team are seeking damages “in excess of $50,000,” the standard language in Pennsylvania for cases likely to involve much larger awards.

Dr. Adajar, despite the loss of his right leg, continues to practice internal medicine.
 

Doctor wins forceps-delivery suit

Last month, a Virginia jury decided in favor of a physician accused of damaging a baby’s eye during delivery, a story in The Winchester Star reports.

In December 2015, Melissa Clements went to Winchester Medical Center, part of Valley Health, to have her baby delivered. Her doctor was ob.gyn. George F. Craft II, at the time a member of Winchester Women’s Specialists. At one point during the roughly 30-minute delivery, Dr. Craft used forceps to remove Ms. Clements’s baby, who in the process sustained facial fractures and left-eye damage.

At trial, Craft argued that a forceps delivery was justified because the baby was stuck and his patient had refused a C-section.

The attorney for the plaintiffs — which included Ms. Clements’s husband — claimed that the use of forceps was premature, as professional guidelines require that a woman in labor be allowed at least 3 hours to push on her own before forceps are employed. (The suit, initially filed in 2019, also accused Dr. Craft of failing to properly inform his patient about the risks of, and alternatives to, this form of delivery. That part of the complaint was dropped, however, prior to the recent trial.)

The jury debated just 50 minutes before deciding Dr. Craft wasn’t medically negligent in the birth of William, Ms. Clements’s now 6-year-old son, who will be forced to wear contact lenses or glasses for life, or undergo corrective surgery.

As Dr. Craft’s attorney explained at trial: “He [Dr. Craft] hoped to give her [Ms. Clements] what she wanted: a vaginal delivery. But forceps techniques can and will cause injuries, even when properly placed.”
 

Unsupervised PAs subject to med-mal cap, state says

The California Supreme Court ruled late last month that even unsupervised physician assistants (PAs) are protected under the state’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, according to a posting on the website of the Claims Journal, among other news sites.

The ruling stems from a 2013 suit filed by Marisol Lopez, who claimed that a dermatologist, a plastic surgeon, and two PAs had misdiagnosed her child’s skin cancer. Ms. Lopez’s child, Olivia Sarinana, died in February 2014, causing her mother to amend her original claim to a wrongful-death suit.

A trial court found both the doctors and the PAs liable for negligence, awarding the plaintiff $11,200 in economic damages and $4.25 million in noneconomic damages. The court subsequently reduced that amount, however, referencing the state’s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, which is part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, known as MICRA.

Ms. Lopez appealed the decision, arguing that the cap shouldn’t apply to the two PAs, because neither was under a physician’s direct supervision and therefore not acting within the proper scope of practice, as defined by state law. Despite agreeing with the factual basis of Ms. Lopez’s claim — that neither PA was being supervised during the period in question — the trial court refused to wave the state cap. Ms. Lopez again appealed, and, in a split decision, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision.

At this point, attorneys for Ms. Lopez applied for, and obtained, a review before the state’s highest court. Last month, the justices weighed in, ruling that the PAs were still entitled to protection under MICRA because they “had valid delegation-of-service agreements in place.” In other words, while the two PAs had not been directly supervised by a physician, their services had been properly delegated by one.

Said Associate Justice Goodwin Liu, who wrote the opinion: “To be sure, there are reasonable policy arguments for excluding physician assistants who perform medical services without actual supervision from a cap on non-economic damages, and the Legislature is well equipped to weigh and reweigh the competing policy considerations. But our role is confined to interpreting the statute before us in the manner that comports most closely with the Legislature’s purpose in enacting MICRA.”

Despite the high-court ruling, voters may soon get a chance to amend the nearly 5-decades-old MICRA legislation. A November ballot initiative would not only adjust the cap for inflation, raising it to more than $1.2 million, but would also permit “judges and juries to waive the cap entirely for cases involving death and permanent disability.”

Medical groups have said that if either or both of these changes happen the cost of healthcare in the Golden State will surely go up.



The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A Pennsylvania physician whose right leg was amputated has filed a medical malpractice suit against his podiatrist, as a story in the Pennsylvania Record, among other news sites, reports.

In December 2020, Mario Adajar, MD, 59, an internist in Wyoming, Penn., sought treatment for his foot calluses and the chronic ulceration of his right foot.

Dr. Adajar consulted a podiatrist, who has surgical privileges at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth Hospital. According to his complaint, Dr. Adajar made the podiatrist aware that he had type 2 diabetes and had recently undergone a kidney transplant.

Over the next several months, Adajar continued to be treated by the podiatrist who, among other things, debrided and cleaned his patient’s ulcerated right foot on multiple occasions. In June 2021, working out of the hospital’s Wound Healing Center, the podiatrist placed Dr. Adajar’s right leg in a total contact cast.

By the following day, the patient experienced what he later described as “excruciating” pain around the cast. He was also running a fever of 102.3. Taken to a local emergency department, Dr. Adajar soon went into septic shock, accompanied by both atrial fibrillation and acute hypoxic respiratory failure.

Doctors soon had a diagnosis: a gram-negative bacilli infection. Meanwhile, his right leg had become severely gangrenous, of the gas gangrene type. Nevertheless, after treatment, Dr. Adajar was discharged on June 15, 2021, and advised to continue with his follow-up, which included a referral to physical therapy. However, on July 27, 2021, doctors at Wilkes-Barre Commonwealth were forced to amputate Dr. Adajar’s right leg through the fibula and tibia.

In his suit, Dr. Adajar claims that the decision by the podiatrist and his associates to place him in a total contact cast was the direct and immediate cause of his injuries, most catastrophically the amputation of his right leg. He and his legal team are seeking damages “in excess of $50,000,” the standard language in Pennsylvania for cases likely to involve much larger awards.

Dr. Adajar, despite the loss of his right leg, continues to practice internal medicine.
 

Doctor wins forceps-delivery suit

Last month, a Virginia jury decided in favor of a physician accused of damaging a baby’s eye during delivery, a story in The Winchester Star reports.

In December 2015, Melissa Clements went to Winchester Medical Center, part of Valley Health, to have her baby delivered. Her doctor was ob.gyn. George F. Craft II, at the time a member of Winchester Women’s Specialists. At one point during the roughly 30-minute delivery, Dr. Craft used forceps to remove Ms. Clements’s baby, who in the process sustained facial fractures and left-eye damage.

At trial, Craft argued that a forceps delivery was justified because the baby was stuck and his patient had refused a C-section.

The attorney for the plaintiffs — which included Ms. Clements’s husband — claimed that the use of forceps was premature, as professional guidelines require that a woman in labor be allowed at least 3 hours to push on her own before forceps are employed. (The suit, initially filed in 2019, also accused Dr. Craft of failing to properly inform his patient about the risks of, and alternatives to, this form of delivery. That part of the complaint was dropped, however, prior to the recent trial.)

The jury debated just 50 minutes before deciding Dr. Craft wasn’t medically negligent in the birth of William, Ms. Clements’s now 6-year-old son, who will be forced to wear contact lenses or glasses for life, or undergo corrective surgery.

As Dr. Craft’s attorney explained at trial: “He [Dr. Craft] hoped to give her [Ms. Clements] what she wanted: a vaginal delivery. But forceps techniques can and will cause injuries, even when properly placed.”
 

Unsupervised PAs subject to med-mal cap, state says

The California Supreme Court ruled late last month that even unsupervised physician assistants (PAs) are protected under the state’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, according to a posting on the website of the Claims Journal, among other news sites.

The ruling stems from a 2013 suit filed by Marisol Lopez, who claimed that a dermatologist, a plastic surgeon, and two PAs had misdiagnosed her child’s skin cancer. Ms. Lopez’s child, Olivia Sarinana, died in February 2014, causing her mother to amend her original claim to a wrongful-death suit.

A trial court found both the doctors and the PAs liable for negligence, awarding the plaintiff $11,200 in economic damages and $4.25 million in noneconomic damages. The court subsequently reduced that amount, however, referencing the state’s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, which is part of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, known as MICRA.

Ms. Lopez appealed the decision, arguing that the cap shouldn’t apply to the two PAs, because neither was under a physician’s direct supervision and therefore not acting within the proper scope of practice, as defined by state law. Despite agreeing with the factual basis of Ms. Lopez’s claim — that neither PA was being supervised during the period in question — the trial court refused to wave the state cap. Ms. Lopez again appealed, and, in a split decision, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision.

At this point, attorneys for Ms. Lopez applied for, and obtained, a review before the state’s highest court. Last month, the justices weighed in, ruling that the PAs were still entitled to protection under MICRA because they “had valid delegation-of-service agreements in place.” In other words, while the two PAs had not been directly supervised by a physician, their services had been properly delegated by one.

Said Associate Justice Goodwin Liu, who wrote the opinion: “To be sure, there are reasonable policy arguments for excluding physician assistants who perform medical services without actual supervision from a cap on non-economic damages, and the Legislature is well equipped to weigh and reweigh the competing policy considerations. But our role is confined to interpreting the statute before us in the manner that comports most closely with the Legislature’s purpose in enacting MICRA.”

Despite the high-court ruling, voters may soon get a chance to amend the nearly 5-decades-old MICRA legislation. A November ballot initiative would not only adjust the cap for inflation, raising it to more than $1.2 million, but would also permit “judges and juries to waive the cap entirely for cases involving death and permanent disability.”

Medical groups have said that if either or both of these changes happen the cost of healthcare in the Golden State will surely go up.



The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

The oncologist’s new best friend

We know that dogs have very sensitive noses. They can track criminals and missing persons and sniff out drugs and bombs. They can even detect cancer cells … after months of training.

And then there are ants.

Erik Karits/Pixabay

Cancer cells produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be sniffed out by dogs and other animals with sufficiently sophisticated olfactory senses. A group of French investigators decided to find out if Formica fusca is such an animal.

First, they placed breast cancer cells and healthy cells in a petri dish. The sample of cancer cells, however, included a sugary treat. “Over successive trials, the ants got quicker and quicker at finding the treat, indicating that they had learned to recognize the VOCs produced by the cancerous cells, using these as a beacon to guide their way to the sugary delight,” according to IFL Science.

When the researchers removed the treat, the ants still went straight for the cancer cells. Then they removed the healthy cells and substituted another type of breast cancer cell, with just one type getting the treat. They went for the cancer cells with the treat, “indicating that they were capable of distinguishing between the different cancer types based on the unique pattern of VOCs emitted by each one,” IFL Science explained.

It’s just another chapter in the eternal struggle between dogs and ants. Dogs need months of training to learn to detect cancer cells; ants can do it in 30 minutes. Over the course of a dog’s training, Fido eats more food than 10,000 ants combined. (Okay, we’re guessing here, but it’s got to be a pretty big number, right?)

Then there’s the warm and fuzzy factor. Just look at that picture. Who wouldn’t want a cutie like that curling up in the bed next to you?
 

Console War II: Battle of the Twitter users

Video games can be a lot of fun, provided you’re not playing something like Rock Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator 2. Yes, those are all real games. But calling yourself a video gamer invites a certain negative connotation, and nowhere can that be better exemplified than the increasingly ridiculous console war.

Comstock/Thinkstock

For those who don’t know their video game history, back in the early 90s Nintendo and Sega were the main video game console makers. Nintendo had Mario, Sega had Sonic, and everyone had an opinion on which was best. With Sega now but a shell of its former self and Nintendo viewed as too “casual” for the true gaming connoisseur, today’s battle pits Playstation against Xbox, and fans of both consoles spend their time trying to one-up each other in increasingly silly online arguments.

That brings us nicely to a Twitter user named “Shreeveera,” who is very vocal about his love of Playstation and hatred of the Xbox. Importantly, for LOTME purposes, Shreeveera identified himself as a doctor on his profile, and in the middle of an argument, Xbox enthusiasts called his credentials into question.

At this point, most people would recognize that there are very few noteworthy console-exclusive video games in today’s world and that any argument about consoles essentially comes down to which console design you like or which company you find less distasteful, and they would step away from the Twitter argument. Shreeveera is not most people, and he decided the next logical move was to post a video of himself and an anesthetized patient about to undergo a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

This move did prove that he was indeed a doctor, but the ethics of posting such a video with a patient in the room is a bit dubious at best. Since Shreeveera also listed the hospital he worked at, numerous Twitter users review bombed the hospital with one-star reviews. Shreeveera’s fate is unknown, but he did take down the video and removed “doctor by profession” from his profile. He also made a second video asking Twitter to stop trying to ruin his life. We’re sure that’ll go well. Twitter is known for being completely fair and reasonable.
 

Use your words to gain power

We live in the age of the emoji. The use of emojis in texts and emails is basically the new shorthand. It’s a fun and easy way to chat with people close to us, but a new study shows that it doesn’t help in a business setting. In fact, it may do a little damage.

Gordon Johnson/Pixabay

The use of images such as emojis in communication or logos can make a person seem less powerful than someone who opts for written words, according to Elinor Amit, PhD, of Tel Aviv University and associates.

Participants in their study were asked to imagine shopping with a person wearing a T-shirt. Half were then shown the logo of the Red Sox baseball team and half saw the words “Red Sox.” In another scenario, they were asked to imagine attending a retreat of a company called Lotus. Then half were shown an employee wearing a shirt with an image of lotus flower and half saw the verbal logo “Lotus.” In both scenarios, the individuals wearing shirts with images were seen as less powerful than the people who wore shirts with words on them.

Why is that? In a Eurekalert statement, Dr. Amit said that “visual messages are often interpreted as a signal for desire for social proximity.” In a world with COVID-19, that could give anyone pause.

That desire for more social proximity, in turn, equals a suggested loss of power because research shows that people who want to be around other people more are less powerful than people who don’t.

With the reduced social proximity we have these days, we may want to keep things cool and lighthearted, especially in work emails with people who we’ve never met. It may be, however, that using your words to say thank you in the multitude of emails you respond to on a regular basis is better than that thumbs-up emoji. Nobody will think less of you.
 

Should Daylight Savings Time still be a thing?

This past week, we just experienced the spring-forward portion of Daylight Savings Time, which took an hour of sleep away from us all. Some of us may still be struggling to find our footing with the time change, but at least it’s still sunny out at 7 pm. For those who don’t really see the point of changing the clocks twice a year, there are actually some good reasons to do so.

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Sen. Marco Rubio, sponsor of a bill to make the time change permanent, put it simply: “If we can get this passed, we don’t have to do this stupidity anymore.” Message received, apparently, since the measure just passed unanimously in the Senate.

It’s not clear if President Biden will approve it, though, because there’s a lot that comes into play: economic needs, seasonal depression, and safety.

“I know this is not the most important issue confronting America, but it’s one of those issues where there’s a lot of agreement,” Sen. Rubio said.

Not total agreement, though. The National Association of Convenience Stores is opposed to the bill, and Reuters noted that one witness at a recent hearing said the time change “is like living in the wrong time zone for almost eight months out of the year.”

Many people, however, seem to be leaning toward the permanent spring-forward as it gives businesses a longer window to provide entertainment in the evenings and kids are able to play outside longer after school.

Honestly, we’re leaning toward whichever one can reduce seasonal depression.

The oncologist’s new best friend

We know that dogs have very sensitive noses. They can track criminals and missing persons and sniff out drugs and bombs. They can even detect cancer cells … after months of training.

And then there are ants.

Erik Karits/Pixabay

Cancer cells produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be sniffed out by dogs and other animals with sufficiently sophisticated olfactory senses. A group of French investigators decided to find out if Formica fusca is such an animal.

First, they placed breast cancer cells and healthy cells in a petri dish. The sample of cancer cells, however, included a sugary treat. “Over successive trials, the ants got quicker and quicker at finding the treat, indicating that they had learned to recognize the VOCs produced by the cancerous cells, using these as a beacon to guide their way to the sugary delight,” according to IFL Science.

When the researchers removed the treat, the ants still went straight for the cancer cells. Then they removed the healthy cells and substituted another type of breast cancer cell, with just one type getting the treat. They went for the cancer cells with the treat, “indicating that they were capable of distinguishing between the different cancer types based on the unique pattern of VOCs emitted by each one,” IFL Science explained.

It’s just another chapter in the eternal struggle between dogs and ants. Dogs need months of training to learn to detect cancer cells; ants can do it in 30 minutes. Over the course of a dog’s training, Fido eats more food than 10,000 ants combined. (Okay, we’re guessing here, but it’s got to be a pretty big number, right?)

Then there’s the warm and fuzzy factor. Just look at that picture. Who wouldn’t want a cutie like that curling up in the bed next to you?
 

Console War II: Battle of the Twitter users

Video games can be a lot of fun, provided you’re not playing something like Rock Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator 2. Yes, those are all real games. But calling yourself a video gamer invites a certain negative connotation, and nowhere can that be better exemplified than the increasingly ridiculous console war.

Comstock/Thinkstock

For those who don’t know their video game history, back in the early 90s Nintendo and Sega were the main video game console makers. Nintendo had Mario, Sega had Sonic, and everyone had an opinion on which was best. With Sega now but a shell of its former self and Nintendo viewed as too “casual” for the true gaming connoisseur, today’s battle pits Playstation against Xbox, and fans of both consoles spend their time trying to one-up each other in increasingly silly online arguments.

That brings us nicely to a Twitter user named “Shreeveera,” who is very vocal about his love of Playstation and hatred of the Xbox. Importantly, for LOTME purposes, Shreeveera identified himself as a doctor on his profile, and in the middle of an argument, Xbox enthusiasts called his credentials into question.

At this point, most people would recognize that there are very few noteworthy console-exclusive video games in today’s world and that any argument about consoles essentially comes down to which console design you like or which company you find less distasteful, and they would step away from the Twitter argument. Shreeveera is not most people, and he decided the next logical move was to post a video of himself and an anesthetized patient about to undergo a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

This move did prove that he was indeed a doctor, but the ethics of posting such a video with a patient in the room is a bit dubious at best. Since Shreeveera also listed the hospital he worked at, numerous Twitter users review bombed the hospital with one-star reviews. Shreeveera’s fate is unknown, but he did take down the video and removed “doctor by profession” from his profile. He also made a second video asking Twitter to stop trying to ruin his life. We’re sure that’ll go well. Twitter is known for being completely fair and reasonable.
 

Use your words to gain power

We live in the age of the emoji. The use of emojis in texts and emails is basically the new shorthand. It’s a fun and easy way to chat with people close to us, but a new study shows that it doesn’t help in a business setting. In fact, it may do a little damage.

Gordon Johnson/Pixabay

The use of images such as emojis in communication or logos can make a person seem less powerful than someone who opts for written words, according to Elinor Amit, PhD, of Tel Aviv University and associates.

Participants in their study were asked to imagine shopping with a person wearing a T-shirt. Half were then shown the logo of the Red Sox baseball team and half saw the words “Red Sox.” In another scenario, they were asked to imagine attending a retreat of a company called Lotus. Then half were shown an employee wearing a shirt with an image of lotus flower and half saw the verbal logo “Lotus.” In both scenarios, the individuals wearing shirts with images were seen as less powerful than the people who wore shirts with words on them.

Why is that? In a Eurekalert statement, Dr. Amit said that “visual messages are often interpreted as a signal for desire for social proximity.” In a world with COVID-19, that could give anyone pause.

That desire for more social proximity, in turn, equals a suggested loss of power because research shows that people who want to be around other people more are less powerful than people who don’t.

With the reduced social proximity we have these days, we may want to keep things cool and lighthearted, especially in work emails with people who we’ve never met. It may be, however, that using your words to say thank you in the multitude of emails you respond to on a regular basis is better than that thumbs-up emoji. Nobody will think less of you.
 

Should Daylight Savings Time still be a thing?

This past week, we just experienced the spring-forward portion of Daylight Savings Time, which took an hour of sleep away from us all. Some of us may still be struggling to find our footing with the time change, but at least it’s still sunny out at 7 pm. For those who don’t really see the point of changing the clocks twice a year, there are actually some good reasons to do so.

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Sen. Marco Rubio, sponsor of a bill to make the time change permanent, put it simply: “If we can get this passed, we don’t have to do this stupidity anymore.” Message received, apparently, since the measure just passed unanimously in the Senate.

It’s not clear if President Biden will approve it, though, because there’s a lot that comes into play: economic needs, seasonal depression, and safety.

“I know this is not the most important issue confronting America, but it’s one of those issues where there’s a lot of agreement,” Sen. Rubio said.

Not total agreement, though. The National Association of Convenience Stores is opposed to the bill, and Reuters noted that one witness at a recent hearing said the time change “is like living in the wrong time zone for almost eight months out of the year.”

Many people, however, seem to be leaning toward the permanent spring-forward as it gives businesses a longer window to provide entertainment in the evenings and kids are able to play outside longer after school.

Honestly, we’re leaning toward whichever one can reduce seasonal depression.

The oncologist’s new best friend

We know that dogs have very sensitive noses. They can track criminals and missing persons and sniff out drugs and bombs. They can even detect cancer cells … after months of training.

And then there are ants.

Erik Karits/Pixabay

Cancer cells produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be sniffed out by dogs and other animals with sufficiently sophisticated olfactory senses. A group of French investigators decided to find out if Formica fusca is such an animal.

First, they placed breast cancer cells and healthy cells in a petri dish. The sample of cancer cells, however, included a sugary treat. “Over successive trials, the ants got quicker and quicker at finding the treat, indicating that they had learned to recognize the VOCs produced by the cancerous cells, using these as a beacon to guide their way to the sugary delight,” according to IFL Science.

When the researchers removed the treat, the ants still went straight for the cancer cells. Then they removed the healthy cells and substituted another type of breast cancer cell, with just one type getting the treat. They went for the cancer cells with the treat, “indicating that they were capable of distinguishing between the different cancer types based on the unique pattern of VOCs emitted by each one,” IFL Science explained.

It’s just another chapter in the eternal struggle between dogs and ants. Dogs need months of training to learn to detect cancer cells; ants can do it in 30 minutes. Over the course of a dog’s training, Fido eats more food than 10,000 ants combined. (Okay, we’re guessing here, but it’s got to be a pretty big number, right?)

Then there’s the warm and fuzzy factor. Just look at that picture. Who wouldn’t want a cutie like that curling up in the bed next to you?
 

Console War II: Battle of the Twitter users

Video games can be a lot of fun, provided you’re not playing something like Rock Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator. Or Surgeon Simulator 2. Yes, those are all real games. But calling yourself a video gamer invites a certain negative connotation, and nowhere can that be better exemplified than the increasingly ridiculous console war.

Comstock/Thinkstock

For those who don’t know their video game history, back in the early 90s Nintendo and Sega were the main video game console makers. Nintendo had Mario, Sega had Sonic, and everyone had an opinion on which was best. With Sega now but a shell of its former self and Nintendo viewed as too “casual” for the true gaming connoisseur, today’s battle pits Playstation against Xbox, and fans of both consoles spend their time trying to one-up each other in increasingly silly online arguments.

That brings us nicely to a Twitter user named “Shreeveera,” who is very vocal about his love of Playstation and hatred of the Xbox. Importantly, for LOTME purposes, Shreeveera identified himself as a doctor on his profile, and in the middle of an argument, Xbox enthusiasts called his credentials into question.

At this point, most people would recognize that there are very few noteworthy console-exclusive video games in today’s world and that any argument about consoles essentially comes down to which console design you like or which company you find less distasteful, and they would step away from the Twitter argument. Shreeveera is not most people, and he decided the next logical move was to post a video of himself and an anesthetized patient about to undergo a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

This move did prove that he was indeed a doctor, but the ethics of posting such a video with a patient in the room is a bit dubious at best. Since Shreeveera also listed the hospital he worked at, numerous Twitter users review bombed the hospital with one-star reviews. Shreeveera’s fate is unknown, but he did take down the video and removed “doctor by profession” from his profile. He also made a second video asking Twitter to stop trying to ruin his life. We’re sure that’ll go well. Twitter is known for being completely fair and reasonable.
 

Use your words to gain power

We live in the age of the emoji. The use of emojis in texts and emails is basically the new shorthand. It’s a fun and easy way to chat with people close to us, but a new study shows that it doesn’t help in a business setting. In fact, it may do a little damage.

Gordon Johnson/Pixabay

The use of images such as emojis in communication or logos can make a person seem less powerful than someone who opts for written words, according to Elinor Amit, PhD, of Tel Aviv University and associates.

Participants in their study were asked to imagine shopping with a person wearing a T-shirt. Half were then shown the logo of the Red Sox baseball team and half saw the words “Red Sox.” In another scenario, they were asked to imagine attending a retreat of a company called Lotus. Then half were shown an employee wearing a shirt with an image of lotus flower and half saw the verbal logo “Lotus.” In both scenarios, the individuals wearing shirts with images were seen as less powerful than the people who wore shirts with words on them.

Why is that? In a Eurekalert statement, Dr. Amit said that “visual messages are often interpreted as a signal for desire for social proximity.” In a world with COVID-19, that could give anyone pause.

That desire for more social proximity, in turn, equals a suggested loss of power because research shows that people who want to be around other people more are less powerful than people who don’t.

With the reduced social proximity we have these days, we may want to keep things cool and lighthearted, especially in work emails with people who we’ve never met. It may be, however, that using your words to say thank you in the multitude of emails you respond to on a regular basis is better than that thumbs-up emoji. Nobody will think less of you.
 

Should Daylight Savings Time still be a thing?

This past week, we just experienced the spring-forward portion of Daylight Savings Time, which took an hour of sleep away from us all. Some of us may still be struggling to find our footing with the time change, but at least it’s still sunny out at 7 pm. For those who don’t really see the point of changing the clocks twice a year, there are actually some good reasons to do so.

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Sen. Marco Rubio, sponsor of a bill to make the time change permanent, put it simply: “If we can get this passed, we don’t have to do this stupidity anymore.” Message received, apparently, since the measure just passed unanimously in the Senate.

It’s not clear if President Biden will approve it, though, because there’s a lot that comes into play: economic needs, seasonal depression, and safety.

“I know this is not the most important issue confronting America, but it’s one of those issues where there’s a lot of agreement,” Sen. Rubio said.

Not total agreement, though. The National Association of Convenience Stores is opposed to the bill, and Reuters noted that one witness at a recent hearing said the time change “is like living in the wrong time zone for almost eight months out of the year.”

Many people, however, seem to be leaning toward the permanent spring-forward as it gives businesses a longer window to provide entertainment in the evenings and kids are able to play outside longer after school.

Honestly, we’re leaning toward whichever one can reduce seasonal depression.

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”