Ob.Gyn. News

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Women in the United States are less likely to die of ovarian cancer, but more likely to die of endometrial cancer than they were 3 decades ago, according to a recent research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“This convergence is because of a steady reduction in the death rate for ovarian cancer, partly because of advances in treatment, alongside a steep increase in the death rate for endometrial cancer,” Rebecca L. Siegel, MPH, corresponding author and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview. “Endometrial cancer has not had any major treatment advances in 40 years.”

However, Ms. Siegel and colleagues also found Black women had a twofold higher endometrial cancer–related mortality rate over the same time frame, compared with White women. The disparity in endometrial cancer mortality rates for Black women compared with White women is alarming, the authors said, and might be an underestimate because of a higher rate of hysterectomy among Black women.

The researchers analyzed endometrial and ovarian cancer mortality rates from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) with the SEER*Stat software, stratifying the data by whether the person belonged to mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories of White, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. They identified 232,957 women who died from endometrial cancer and 419,085 people who died from ovarian cancer between 1990 and 2019.

Ms. Siegel and colleagues found there was a decrease in ovarian cancer mortality rates between 1990 (9.3 per 100,000 women) and 2019 (6.0 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 22.7%; 95% confidence interval, 23.5%-22.0%). While endometrial cancer mortality decreased between 1990 (4.3 per 100,000 women) and 1997 (4.0 per 100,000 women), it increased between 1997 and 2019 (5.1 per 100,000 women) (average annual percent change, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.1%). When measuring ovarian cancer mortality to endometrial cancer mortality from 1990 (9.3 vs. 4.3 per 100,000), compared with 2019 (6.0 vs. 5.1 per 100,000), there is a significant decline in excess deaths from ovarian cancer.

“Three decades ago, women in the United States were almost twice as likely to die from ovarian cancer as they were to die from endometrial cancer,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. “Today the difference is only 15% higher, or an excess of less than 1 death per of 100,000 women.”
 

Growing racial disparity in endometrial cancer mortality

While these results persisted for some racial and ethnic subgroups, it did not persist for Black women, who saw an increase in endometrial cancer mortality rate from 7.2 per 100,000 women between 1990 and 1994 to 9.1 per 100,000 women between 2015 and 2019. Compared with White women, there was a significant increase in the mortality rate ratio for uterine cancer for Black women, from 1.83 between 1990 and 1994 (95% CI, 1.77-1.89) to 1.98 between 2015 and 2019 (95% CI, 1.93-2.02) (P < .001).

“Endometrial cancer has one of the largest racial disparities of any cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate for Black women is 63% compared to 84% for White women – a 21% gap in absolute terms. This is largely due to less access to high-quality health care, which is reflected in both later-stage diagnosis and lower survival for every stage of disease,” Ms. Siegel said in an interview. Other factors that contribute include lack of guideline-concordant surgical treatment, and increased risk of aggressive tumor subtypes.

Alex A. Francoeur, MD; and Ritu Salani, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who were not involved in the study, said the research by Ms. Siegel and colleagues “highlights growing disparities in uterine cancer between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women.”

“Understanding race as a social, not biological construct, and as a proxy for socioeconomic status, is key to understanding this disparity,” said Dr. Francoeur, a third-year ob.gyn. resident at UCLA Health, and Dr. Salani, an Ob.Gyn. News editorial board member. “For example, many studies cite a more advanced stage at diagnosis as an explanation for racial disparities in endometrial cancer; however, this is a substitute for differences in health care access as well as other socioeconomic factors such as income and education.”

Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani also acknowledged other disparities in risk factors may play a role in the differences in endometrial mortality rates such as obesity, which “in non-Hispanic Black women is over 60% greater than non-Hispanic White women.”

In terms of limitations, they noted that SEER’s database is less representative of the population, compared with the United States Cancer Statistics database (36.7% vs. 99%), and that factors such as greater prevalence of hysterectomy may contribute to larger racial disparities.

“Future studies need to examine inequities in treatment by race as well as the importance of health care systems in the stage of diagnosis,” they said.

Ms. Siegel said her team plans to follow the patterns outlined in this analysis and examine factors like cancer subtype, socioeconomic status, and place of residence in the future. “However, health inequalities are rooted in systemic racism, so documentation is necessary but insufficient to effect change, which must occur at the institutional level. A more concerted effort is needed to ensure that every woman receives appropriate treatment, regardless of the color of her skin, and education of providers to reduce racial bias and help increase trust in the health care system should be required.”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Francoeur and Dr. Salani reported no relevant financial disclosures.

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Goffin’s cockatoo? More like golfin’ cockatoo

Can birds play golf? Of course not; it’s ridiculous. Humans can barely play golf, and we invented the sport. Anyway, moving on to “Brian retraction injury after elective aneurysm clipping.”

Hang on, we’re now hearing that a group of researchers, as part of a large international project comparing children’s innovation and problem-solving skills with those of cockatoos, have in fact taught a group of Goffin’s cockatoos how to play golf. Huh. What an oddly specific project. All right, fine, I guess we’ll go with the golf-playing birds.

Goffin Lab

Golf may seem very simple at its core. It is, essentially, whacking a ball with a stick. But the Scots who invented the game were undertaking a complex project involving combined usage of multiple tools, and until now, only primates were thought to be capable of utilizing compound tools to play games such as golf.

For this latest research, published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid birds were given a rudimentary form of golf to play (featuring a stick, a ball, and a closed box to get the ball through). Putting the ball through the hole gave the bird a reward. Not every cockatoo was able to hole out, but three did, with each inventing a unique way to manipulate the stick to hit the ball.

As entertaining as it would be to simply teach some birds how to play golf, we do loop back around to medical relevance. While children are perfectly capable of using tools, young children in particular are actually quite bad at using tools to solve novel solutions. Present a 5-year-old with a stick, a ball, and a hole, and that child might not figure out what the cockatoos did. The research really does give insight into the psychology behind the development of complex tools and technology by our ancient ancestors, according to the researchers.

We’re not entirely convinced this isn’t an elaborate ploy to get a bird out onto the PGA Tour. The LOTME staff can see the future headline already: “Painted bunting wins Valspar Championship in epic playoff.”
 

Work out now, sweat never

Okay, show of hands: Who’s familiar with “Name that tune?” The TV game show got a reboot last year, but some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s version hosted by national treasure Tom Kennedy.

Edith Cowan University

The contestants try to identify a song as quickly as possible, claiming that they “can name that tune in five notes.” Or four notes, or three. Well, welcome to “Name that exercise study.”

Senior author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, and associates gathered together 39 students from Niigata (Japan) University of Health and Welfare and had them perform one isometric, concentric, or eccentric bicep curl with a dumbbell for 3 seconds a day at maximum effort for 5 days a week, over 4 weeks. And yes, we did say 3 seconds.

“Lifting the weight sees the bicep in concentric contraction, lowering the weight sees it in eccentric contraction, while holding the weight parallel to the ground is isometric,” they explained in a statement on Eurekalert.

The three exercise groups were compared with a group that did no exercise, and after 4 weeks of rigorous but brief science, the group doing eccentric contractions had the best results, as their overall muscle strength increased by 11.5%. After a total of just 60 seconds of exercise in 4 weeks. That’s 60 seconds. In 4 weeks.

Big news, but maybe we can do better. “Tom, we can do that exercise in 2 seconds.”

And one! And two! Whoa, feel the burn.
 

Tingling over anxiety

Apparently there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who love ASMR and those who just don’t get it.

ASMR, for those who don’t know, is the autonomous sensory meridian response. An online community has surfaced, with video creators making tapping sounds, whispering, or brushing mannequin hair to elicit “a pleasant tingling sensation originating from the scalp and neck which can spread to the rest of the body” from viewers, Charlotte M. Eid and associates said in PLOS One.

The people who are into these types of videos are more likely to have higher levels of neuroticism than those who aren’t, which gives ASMR the potential to be a nontraditional form of treatment for anxiety and/or neuroticism, they suggested.

The research involved a group of 64 volunteers who watched an ASMR video meant to trigger the tingles and then completed questionnaires to evaluate their levels of neuroticism, trait anxiety, and state anxiety, said Ms. Eid and associates of Northumbria University in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

The people who had a history of producing tingles from ASMR videos in the past had higher levels of anxiety, compared with those who didn’t. Those who responded to triggers also received some benefit from the video in the study, reporting lower levels of neuroticism and anxiety after watching, the investigators found.

Although people who didn’t have a history of tingles didn’t feel any reduction in anxiety after the video, that didn’t stop the people who weren’t familiar with the genre from catching tingles.

So if you find yourself a little high strung or anxious, or if you can’t sleep, consider watching a person pretending to give you a makeover or using fingernails to tap on books for some relaxation. Don’t knock it until you try it!
 

Living in the past? Not so far-fetched

It’s usually an insult when people tell us to stop living in the past, but the joke’s on them because we really do live in the past. By 15 seconds, to be exact, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley.

Mauro Manassi

But wait, did you just read that last sentence 15 seconds ago, even though it feels like real time? Did we just type these words now, or 15 seconds ago?

Think of your brain as a web page you’re constantly refreshing. We are constantly seeing new pictures, images, and colors, and your brain is responsible for keeping everything in chronological order. This new research suggests that our brains show us images from 15 seconds prior. Is your mind blown yet?

“One could say our brain is procrastinating. It’s too much work to constantly update images, so it sticks to the past because the past is a good predictor of the present. We recycle information from the past because it’s faster, more efficient and less work,” senior author David Whitney explained in a statement from the university.

It seems like the 15-second rule helps us not lose our minds by keeping a steady flow of information, but it could be a bit dangerous if someone, such as a surgeon, needs to see things with extreme precision.

And now we are definitely feeling a bit anxious about our upcoming heart/spleen/gallbladder replacement. … Where’s that link to the ASMR video?

Goffin’s cockatoo? More like golfin’ cockatoo

Can birds play golf? Of course not; it’s ridiculous. Humans can barely play golf, and we invented the sport. Anyway, moving on to “Brian retraction injury after elective aneurysm clipping.”

Hang on, we’re now hearing that a group of researchers, as part of a large international project comparing children’s innovation and problem-solving skills with those of cockatoos, have in fact taught a group of Goffin’s cockatoos how to play golf. Huh. What an oddly specific project. All right, fine, I guess we’ll go with the golf-playing birds.

Goffin Lab

Golf may seem very simple at its core. It is, essentially, whacking a ball with a stick. But the Scots who invented the game were undertaking a complex project involving combined usage of multiple tools, and until now, only primates were thought to be capable of utilizing compound tools to play games such as golf.

For this latest research, published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid birds were given a rudimentary form of golf to play (featuring a stick, a ball, and a closed box to get the ball through). Putting the ball through the hole gave the bird a reward. Not every cockatoo was able to hole out, but three did, with each inventing a unique way to manipulate the stick to hit the ball.

As entertaining as it would be to simply teach some birds how to play golf, we do loop back around to medical relevance. While children are perfectly capable of using tools, young children in particular are actually quite bad at using tools to solve novel solutions. Present a 5-year-old with a stick, a ball, and a hole, and that child might not figure out what the cockatoos did. The research really does give insight into the psychology behind the development of complex tools and technology by our ancient ancestors, according to the researchers.

We’re not entirely convinced this isn’t an elaborate ploy to get a bird out onto the PGA Tour. The LOTME staff can see the future headline already: “Painted bunting wins Valspar Championship in epic playoff.”
 

Work out now, sweat never

Okay, show of hands: Who’s familiar with “Name that tune?” The TV game show got a reboot last year, but some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s version hosted by national treasure Tom Kennedy.

Edith Cowan University

The contestants try to identify a song as quickly as possible, claiming that they “can name that tune in five notes.” Or four notes, or three. Well, welcome to “Name that exercise study.”

Senior author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, and associates gathered together 39 students from Niigata (Japan) University of Health and Welfare and had them perform one isometric, concentric, or eccentric bicep curl with a dumbbell for 3 seconds a day at maximum effort for 5 days a week, over 4 weeks. And yes, we did say 3 seconds.

“Lifting the weight sees the bicep in concentric contraction, lowering the weight sees it in eccentric contraction, while holding the weight parallel to the ground is isometric,” they explained in a statement on Eurekalert.

The three exercise groups were compared with a group that did no exercise, and after 4 weeks of rigorous but brief science, the group doing eccentric contractions had the best results, as their overall muscle strength increased by 11.5%. After a total of just 60 seconds of exercise in 4 weeks. That’s 60 seconds. In 4 weeks.

Big news, but maybe we can do better. “Tom, we can do that exercise in 2 seconds.”

And one! And two! Whoa, feel the burn.
 

Tingling over anxiety

Apparently there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who love ASMR and those who just don’t get it.

ASMR, for those who don’t know, is the autonomous sensory meridian response. An online community has surfaced, with video creators making tapping sounds, whispering, or brushing mannequin hair to elicit “a pleasant tingling sensation originating from the scalp and neck which can spread to the rest of the body” from viewers, Charlotte M. Eid and associates said in PLOS One.

The people who are into these types of videos are more likely to have higher levels of neuroticism than those who aren’t, which gives ASMR the potential to be a nontraditional form of treatment for anxiety and/or neuroticism, they suggested.

The research involved a group of 64 volunteers who watched an ASMR video meant to trigger the tingles and then completed questionnaires to evaluate their levels of neuroticism, trait anxiety, and state anxiety, said Ms. Eid and associates of Northumbria University in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

The people who had a history of producing tingles from ASMR videos in the past had higher levels of anxiety, compared with those who didn’t. Those who responded to triggers also received some benefit from the video in the study, reporting lower levels of neuroticism and anxiety after watching, the investigators found.

Although people who didn’t have a history of tingles didn’t feel any reduction in anxiety after the video, that didn’t stop the people who weren’t familiar with the genre from catching tingles.

So if you find yourself a little high strung or anxious, or if you can’t sleep, consider watching a person pretending to give you a makeover or using fingernails to tap on books for some relaxation. Don’t knock it until you try it!
 

Living in the past? Not so far-fetched

It’s usually an insult when people tell us to stop living in the past, but the joke’s on them because we really do live in the past. By 15 seconds, to be exact, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley.

Mauro Manassi

But wait, did you just read that last sentence 15 seconds ago, even though it feels like real time? Did we just type these words now, or 15 seconds ago?

Think of your brain as a web page you’re constantly refreshing. We are constantly seeing new pictures, images, and colors, and your brain is responsible for keeping everything in chronological order. This new research suggests that our brains show us images from 15 seconds prior. Is your mind blown yet?

“One could say our brain is procrastinating. It’s too much work to constantly update images, so it sticks to the past because the past is a good predictor of the present. We recycle information from the past because it’s faster, more efficient and less work,” senior author David Whitney explained in a statement from the university.

It seems like the 15-second rule helps us not lose our minds by keeping a steady flow of information, but it could be a bit dangerous if someone, such as a surgeon, needs to see things with extreme precision.

And now we are definitely feeling a bit anxious about our upcoming heart/spleen/gallbladder replacement. … Where’s that link to the ASMR video?

Goffin’s cockatoo? More like golfin’ cockatoo

Can birds play golf? Of course not; it’s ridiculous. Humans can barely play golf, and we invented the sport. Anyway, moving on to “Brian retraction injury after elective aneurysm clipping.”

Hang on, we’re now hearing that a group of researchers, as part of a large international project comparing children’s innovation and problem-solving skills with those of cockatoos, have in fact taught a group of Goffin’s cockatoos how to play golf. Huh. What an oddly specific project. All right, fine, I guess we’ll go with the golf-playing birds.

Goffin Lab

Golf may seem very simple at its core. It is, essentially, whacking a ball with a stick. But the Scots who invented the game were undertaking a complex project involving combined usage of multiple tools, and until now, only primates were thought to be capable of utilizing compound tools to play games such as golf.

For this latest research, published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid birds were given a rudimentary form of golf to play (featuring a stick, a ball, and a closed box to get the ball through). Putting the ball through the hole gave the bird a reward. Not every cockatoo was able to hole out, but three did, with each inventing a unique way to manipulate the stick to hit the ball.

As entertaining as it would be to simply teach some birds how to play golf, we do loop back around to medical relevance. While children are perfectly capable of using tools, young children in particular are actually quite bad at using tools to solve novel solutions. Present a 5-year-old with a stick, a ball, and a hole, and that child might not figure out what the cockatoos did. The research really does give insight into the psychology behind the development of complex tools and technology by our ancient ancestors, according to the researchers.

We’re not entirely convinced this isn’t an elaborate ploy to get a bird out onto the PGA Tour. The LOTME staff can see the future headline already: “Painted bunting wins Valspar Championship in epic playoff.”
 

Work out now, sweat never

Okay, show of hands: Who’s familiar with “Name that tune?” The TV game show got a reboot last year, but some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s version hosted by national treasure Tom Kennedy.

Edith Cowan University

The contestants try to identify a song as quickly as possible, claiming that they “can name that tune in five notes.” Or four notes, or three. Well, welcome to “Name that exercise study.”

Senior author Masatoshi Nakamura, PhD, and associates gathered together 39 students from Niigata (Japan) University of Health and Welfare and had them perform one isometric, concentric, or eccentric bicep curl with a dumbbell for 3 seconds a day at maximum effort for 5 days a week, over 4 weeks. And yes, we did say 3 seconds.

“Lifting the weight sees the bicep in concentric contraction, lowering the weight sees it in eccentric contraction, while holding the weight parallel to the ground is isometric,” they explained in a statement on Eurekalert.

The three exercise groups were compared with a group that did no exercise, and after 4 weeks of rigorous but brief science, the group doing eccentric contractions had the best results, as their overall muscle strength increased by 11.5%. After a total of just 60 seconds of exercise in 4 weeks. That’s 60 seconds. In 4 weeks.

Big news, but maybe we can do better. “Tom, we can do that exercise in 2 seconds.”

And one! And two! Whoa, feel the burn.
 

Tingling over anxiety

Apparently there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who love ASMR and those who just don’t get it.

ASMR, for those who don’t know, is the autonomous sensory meridian response. An online community has surfaced, with video creators making tapping sounds, whispering, or brushing mannequin hair to elicit “a pleasant tingling sensation originating from the scalp and neck which can spread to the rest of the body” from viewers, Charlotte M. Eid and associates said in PLOS One.

The people who are into these types of videos are more likely to have higher levels of neuroticism than those who aren’t, which gives ASMR the potential to be a nontraditional form of treatment for anxiety and/or neuroticism, they suggested.

The research involved a group of 64 volunteers who watched an ASMR video meant to trigger the tingles and then completed questionnaires to evaluate their levels of neuroticism, trait anxiety, and state anxiety, said Ms. Eid and associates of Northumbria University in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

The people who had a history of producing tingles from ASMR videos in the past had higher levels of anxiety, compared with those who didn’t. Those who responded to triggers also received some benefit from the video in the study, reporting lower levels of neuroticism and anxiety after watching, the investigators found.

Although people who didn’t have a history of tingles didn’t feel any reduction in anxiety after the video, that didn’t stop the people who weren’t familiar with the genre from catching tingles.

So if you find yourself a little high strung or anxious, or if you can’t sleep, consider watching a person pretending to give you a makeover or using fingernails to tap on books for some relaxation. Don’t knock it until you try it!
 

Living in the past? Not so far-fetched

It’s usually an insult when people tell us to stop living in the past, but the joke’s on them because we really do live in the past. By 15 seconds, to be exact, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley.

Mauro Manassi

But wait, did you just read that last sentence 15 seconds ago, even though it feels like real time? Did we just type these words now, or 15 seconds ago?

Think of your brain as a web page you’re constantly refreshing. We are constantly seeing new pictures, images, and colors, and your brain is responsible for keeping everything in chronological order. This new research suggests that our brains show us images from 15 seconds prior. Is your mind blown yet?

“One could say our brain is procrastinating. It’s too much work to constantly update images, so it sticks to the past because the past is a good predictor of the present. We recycle information from the past because it’s faster, more efficient and less work,” senior author David Whitney explained in a statement from the university.

It seems like the 15-second rule helps us not lose our minds by keeping a steady flow of information, but it could be a bit dangerous if someone, such as a surgeon, needs to see things with extreme precision.

And now we are definitely feeling a bit anxious about our upcoming heart/spleen/gallbladder replacement. … Where’s that link to the ASMR video?

Nearly 80% of obstetrician-gynecologists report having been named in at least one malpractice claim, but the total number who report such suits has fallen steadily since 2017, according to the Medscape Ob/Gyn Malpractice Report 2021.

Ob.gyns. were the fifth most likely among practitioners in 29 specialties to be sued, and they are much more likely than are the typical physicians to be parties to a malpractice case (51%), according to the new report. However, the number of ob.gyns. who reported a malpractice suit has been dropping, from 85% in 2017 to 83% in 2019 to 79% in 2021. In most cases, multiple parties were named in the lawsuit (64%), although 27% of ob.gyns. reported having been sued individually.

The most common reasons for lawsuits were complications from treatment/surgery (39%), poor outcome/disease progression (30%), failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (25%), patients suffering an abnormal injury (17%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

The 2021 report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians representing 29 specialties; the survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021. Respondents include 314 ob.gyns. Most respondents had been in practice at least 25 years (60%), and 55% were at least 60 years old.

Ob.gyns. carry higher malpractice insurance costs than nearly every other medical specialty, owing to the unique challenges and inherent risks of delivering newborn babies. In 2021, 33% of ob.gyns. reported paying at least $30,000 in annual premiums, and only 27% said they paid less than $20,000. Over half of all specialists (52%) paid less than $20,000 in annual insurance premiums.

More than 70% of ob.gyns. were “very” (32%) or “somewhat” surprised (40%) by their malpractice suits. A large majority said they believed the lawsuit was unwarranted (78%). One respondent wrote: “Feeling like I had done my best for the patient and she sued me anyway.”

Many cases settled before trial (40%), although some (12%) were still in process at the time of the survey. Other outcomes ranged from a judge or jury ruling on behalf of the physician (8%) or the lawsuit being dismissed within a few months of filing (8%). Ob.gyns. reported having lost 2% the suits.

The largest proportion of cases took less than 2 years (39%), although almost as many cases (33%) lasted between 3 and 5 years. Monetary awards to plaintiffs exceeded $1 million in 15% of cases that resulted in economic damages, with 8% of these awards exceeding $2 million. One in five awards were between $500,000 and $1 million.

Most ob.gyns. (67%) said the lawsuits did not negatively affect their careers. Roughly one in five ob.gyns. (21%) said they now trusted their patients less than they did before the suit, modestly fewer than specialists overall (24%).

The largest proportion of ob.gyns. (44%) said they would not have done anything differently, almost identical to the proportion of physicians overall (43%). Approximately 10% of ob.gyns. said they would never have taken the patient in the first place, while 9% said they should have developed better chart documentation, and 8% said they should have referred the patient to another physician.

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