Ob.Gyn. News

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

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

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

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

One in five women in the United States undergoing maternity care experiences mistreatment from health care providers, based on survey data from more than 2,000 individuals.

“We have to do better at providing respectful and unbiased care to all mothers,” Debra E. Houry, MD, chief medical officer of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a press briefing announcing the findings, which were published as a Vital Signs report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research showed an increase in maternal deaths in the United States from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births between 2018 and 2021, but approximately 80% of these deaths are preventable, wrote Yousra A. Mohamoud, PhD, of the CDC’s division of reproductive health, and colleagues.

Dr. Mohamoud

“Maternal mortality review committees have identified discrimination as one factor contributing to pregnancy-related deaths,” the researchers wrote. Respectful care must be part of a larger strategy to prevent these deaths, they emphasized.

In the report, researchers reviewed data from 2,402 women who responded to an opt-in survey. The survey was conducted for the CDC through Porter Novelli, and no personally identifying information was included. Nearly 70% of the participants were White, 10.7% were Black, 10.2% were Hispanic, 4.8% were Asian, 1.5% were American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, 2.8% were multiracial, and 0.5% were another race.

The survey included questions about maternity care experiences during pregnancy and delivery of the youngest child. For 65.5% of respondents, their youngest child was 5 years or older at the time of the survey.

Mistreatment during maternity care was defined using seven validated questions, including questions about violations of physical privacy, verbal abuse, and inattention to requests for help. Satisfaction with maternity care was defined as “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”

Participants also responded to questions about discrimination during maternity care based on factors such as race, ethnicity, skin color, age, and weight. Finally, participants were asked whether they refrained from asking questions about their health or raising concerns with health care providers.

Overall, 20.4% of respondents reported experiencing one of the defined forms of mistreatment during maternity care. The most common mistreatment reported by the women was being ignored by providers when they requested help (9.7%), followed by being shouted at or scolded (6.7%), having physical privacy violated (5.1%), and being forced to accept unwanted treatment or threatened with withholding of treatment (4.6%).

However, approximately 90% of women overall and 75% of those who reported any mistreatment were very or somewhat satisfied with their maternity care.

When stratified by race, mistreatment was reported most frequently by Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women (30%, 29%, and 27%, respectively).

Overall, 29% of women reported experiencing some type of discrimination; the most frequently reported reasons were age, weight, and income. Black women reported the highest rates of discrimination (40%) followed by multiracial women (39%) and Hispanic women (37%).

With regard to self-advocacy, 45% of women reported holding back from asking questions of health care providers; the most common reasons were thinking their health concerns were normal for pregnancy, being embarrassed, and being concerned that health care providers would consider them difficult.

In addition, more women with no insurance or public insurance at the time of delivery reported mistreatment during their maternity care than did women with private insurance (28%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the opt-in nature of the survey, which means that the data are likely not representative of the birthing population in the United States, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, potential recall bias, use of English language only, and use of a combined category for respondents of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander ethnicity.

However, the results highlight the need for improving respectful care as part of a larger strategy to reduce pregnancy-related deaths, the researchers said. At the system level, quality improvement programs are needed to standardize care and support providers in recognizing and reducing biases and increasing cultural awareness and communication. At the provider level, clinicians at all points in the maternity care process can improve patient experiences by providing equitable and respectful care, and by listening to and addressing patients’ concerns.

In addition, communication campaigns and community engagement can include perspectives of patients, families, and communities to support women and encourage them to ask questions and express concerns, the researchers said.

Improving respectful care can be part of actions to reduce mortality at all levels, the researchers noted. The Hear Her campaign, developed by the CDC Foundation with funding from Merck, provides resources for pregnant and postpartum women and their support networks to help reduce pregnancy-related deaths and complications by encouraging women to share concerns with providers and to recognize urgent maternal warning signs.

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

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Across all industries, studies by the U.S. Department of Labor have shown that women, on average, earn 83.7 percent of what their male peers earn. While a lot has been written about the struggles women face in medicine, there have been decidedly fewer analyses that focus on women who choose to become mothers while working in medicine.

Elina Maymind

I’ve been privileged to work with medical students and residents for the last 8 years as the director of graduate and medical student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. Often, the women I see as patients speak about their struggles with the elusive goal of “having it all.” While both men and women in medicine have difficulty maintaining a work-life balance, I’ve learned, both personally and professionally, that many women face a unique set of challenges.

No matter what their professional status, our society often views a woman as the default parent. For example, the teacher often calls the mothers first. The camp nurse calls me first, not my husband, when our child scrapes a knee. After-school play dates are arranged by the mothers, not fathers.

But mothers also bring to medicine a wealth of unique experiences, ideas, and viewpoints. They learn firsthand how to foster affect regulation and frustration tolerance in their kids and become efficient at managing the constant, conflicting tug of war of demands.

Some may argue that, over time, women end up earning significantly less than their male counterparts because they leave the workforce while on maternity leave, ultimately delaying their upward career progression. It’s likely a much more complex problem. Many of my patients believe that, in our male-dominated society (and workforce), women are punished for being aggressive or stating bold opinions, while men are rewarded for the same actions. While a man may sound forceful and in charge, a women will likely be thought of as brusque and unappreciative.

Outside of work, many women may have more on their plate. A 2020 Gallup poll of more than 3,000 heterosexual couples found that women are responsible for the majority of household chores. Women continue to handle more of the emotional labor within their families, regardless of income, age, or professional status. This is sometimes called the “Mental Load’ or “Second Shift.” As our society continues to view women as the default parent for childcare, medical issues, and overarching social and emotional tasks vital to raising happy, healthy children, the struggle a female medical professional feels is palpable.

Despite the very real and difficult challenges in finding a perfect balance and having it all, both at home and at work, the role of mother and physician must be intimately intertwined. Raising kids requires a parent to consistently dole out control, predictability, and reassurance for a child to thrive. Good limit and boundary setting leads to healthy development from a young age.

Psychiatric patients (and perhaps all patients) also require control, predictability, and reassurance from their doctor. The lessons learned in being a good mother can be directly applied in patient care, and vice versa. The cross-pollination of this relationship continues to grow more powerful as a woman’s children grow and her career matures.

Pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s idea of a “good enough” mother cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Women who self-select into the world of medicine often hold themselves to a higher standard than “good enough.” Acknowledging that the demands from both home and work will fluctuate is key to achieving success both personally and professionally, and lessons from home can and should be utilized to become a more effective physician. The notion of having it all, and the definition of success, must evolve over time.

Dr. Maymind is director of medical and graduate student mental health at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mt. Laurel, N.J. She has no relevant disclosures.

Nearly 90% of women who self-managed medication abortion in pregnancies of 9-16 weeks’ gestation had complete abortions with no need for procedural intervention, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Although most abortions happen within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, it is important to understand the effectiveness of different models of care in a wider gestational range, corresponding author Heidi Moseson, PhD, of Ibis Reproductive Health in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“There will always be people who need abortions after 9 weeks of pregnancy,” she said, whether because of delayed recognition of the pregnancy, changes in the pregnant person’s health, a fetal diagnosis, changes in life circumstances, time required to gather money, transportation to care, or other reasons.

“This study builds on prior research from the same SAFE study cohort that established self-managed medication abortion in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy as safe and effective, and noninferior to clinician-managed abortion,” Dr. Moseson said. “With this analysis, we wanted to explore whether self-managed medication abortion remained effective after 9 weeks of pregnancy, too.”

In the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Dr. Moseson and colleagues recruited 1,352 women who were initiating self-managed medication abortion through one of three abortion-accompaniment groups in Argentina, Nigeria, and Southeast Asia between 2019 and 2020. Of these, 264 were self-managing a medication abortion at 9 or more weeks’ gestation.

Participants completed a baseline phone survey before beginning the pill regimen, and follow-up surveys at 1 week and 3 weeks after taking the pills. The average age of the participants was 26 years; 75% were at 9-11 weeks’ gestation, 19.3% were at 12-14 weeks’ gestation, and 5.7% were at 15-22 weeks’ gestation. Slightly more than half of the participants (56.4%) used a combination of mifepristone plus misoprostol, and 43.6% used misoprostol only.

The primary outcome was abortion completion. Secondary outcomes included health care seeking and treatment as well as physical experiences.

A total of 89.4% of participants had an abortion completion without the need for procedural intervention. Another 5.3% had a complete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage, 4.9% had an incomplete abortion, and one patient reported no abortion outcome.

Of the participants who sought health care during or after the self-managed abortion, 15.9% sought to confirm abortion completion, and 9.1% needed additional medical intervention, including procedural evacuation, antibiotics, additional misoprostol, intravenous fluids, blood transfusion, or an overnight stay in the health care facility.

Overall, women who were at least 12 weeks pregnant were more likely to seek care at a clinic or hospital than those who were 9-11 weeks pregnant (adjusted relative risk, 1.62).

“Particularly in the United States, the [Food and Drug Administration] label only endorsed medication abortion use through 10 weeks of pregnancy; as a result, many people in the U.S. have the incorrect assumption that the pills are not effective after 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “This isn’t true. There is no magic line at 10 or 12 weeks after which the pills stop working – in fact, the uterus becomes more sensitive, not less, to misoprostol as a pregnancy progresses. This is why the misoprostol dose is reduced by half for abortions after 12-14 weeks or so.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for gestational age and abortion outcome, without confirmation by ultrasonogram, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to randomize participants to medication regimens because of legal restrictions on abortion access within the study sites, and the small number of participants (three) who underwent self-managed medication abortion at 17-22 weeks’ gestation.
 

Data support self-management medication abortion later in pregnancy

“Many people are not aware that there is a robust randomized clinical trial literature that demonstrates that both medication abortion regimens remain highly effective up to 24-28 weeks of pregnancy,” as well as a Cochrane review, Dr. Moseson said. “We know that when these pills are administered in a clinical setting well beyond 9 weeks of pregnancy, that they are highly effective and safe.

“We did not expect that the pills would work differently just because someone takes all doses at home, rather than just the second or third dose at home, as happens in most clinician-managed medication abortions,” she noted. However, “we were interested to see differences in likelihood of health care seeking during or after the abortion by country, but in some ways, also not surprised by these differences given that the risks of seeking care and the expectations around care varied significantly across the study sites.”

Looking ahead, “as we think about the United States and we see more and more bans and restrictions on abortion care going into effect, we will see people seeking abortion later into their pregnancies due to these additional barriers people have to overcome to get care,” said Dr. Moseson. “This need for abortion care later in pregnancy extends to self-managed medication abortion, and in that light, I find the results from this study to be reassuring.

“For people who for some reason or another can’t obtain pills until they are 12 or 13 or more weeks’ pregnant, these findings suggest that people can still safely use the pills on their own to end their pregnancy,” she said. Notably, “the participants in this study had high-quality information on how to take the pills, and phone-based counseling and support available to them throughout their abortion via the accompaniment groups, so ensuring that people who self-manage with pills have accurate, accessible information on how to use the pills and monitor for warning signs is also key. 

“Additional research is needed to understand the unique informational and support needs of people who are self-managing their abortions beyond 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “What information do they need and want to feel secure and safe, what resources do they need to protect themselves from legal risk, where and how can they safely access clinical care if needed? These sorts of practical questions feel urgent, and there is much that can be learned from the activist abortion accompaniment groups around the world that have been providing this sort of informational, emotional, and physical support to aborting people for decades.”
 

Rising rate of self-managed abortions highlights need for more data

“As abortion restrictions increase in the United States, more people may choose to self-manage their abortions,” Lauren Owens, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Worldwide, self-managed abortion with accompaniment has been shown to be noninferior to medication abortion involving clinical settings at gestational ages less than 9 weeks, as shown in the SAFE study. However, legal and other logistical barriers to care may mean that people can’t access abortion care until after 9 weeks, and we need more data about the effectiveness of these medications when used outside clinical settings.”

courtesy University of Washington

Dr. Owens was not surprised by the effectiveness of the medications to end pregnancies between 9 and 16 weeks’ gestation, with few needing follow-up care. However, “it makes sense that as gestational age increases, the percent of people seeking follow-up care also increases, even as it remains a minority of people,” she said.

The World Health Organization’s guidance on self-managed abortion, issued in 2022, was similar to the regimen in the current study, she added.“Self-managed abortion at home can be very safe and effective from 9-16 weeks’ gestation,” said Dr. Owens. “Having access to accompaniment or support, such as the Medication and Abortion Hotline in the United States, can help people through the process.”

According to a recent report, “more than half the abortions in the U.S. were done using medication in 2020, and protocols developed during the pandemic helped us see how safe medication abortion can be without in-person clinic visits,” Dr. Owens said. “I would encourage clinicians who view the 9.1% rate of need for further interventions (such as intravenous fluids, suction, transfusion) in this study as high to compare this to the rate of interventions and morbidity in ongoing pregnancy.”

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the cesarean rate in the United States varies by state, but ranges from 21% to 35% of pregnancies; “some of the states with the highest cesarean rates are also those with the most abortion restrictions,” Dr. Owens said. “Abortion is generally safer than continuing pregnancy, and patients deserve access to safe options for abortion care and pregnancy care. Clinicians should know that patients can access these medications through Aid Access, accompaniment through the Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline, and legal advice through If/When/How.”

“We still need more data on self-managed abortion at higher gestational ages,” said Dr. Owens. “Few participants in the study were 14 or more weeks’ pregnant; also, despite the WHO recommendation against criminalization of self-managed abortion, we have seen criminalization for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the United States. As self-managed abortion may carry more legal than medical risks for people, creating and evaluating patient and clinician education to minimize that risk is important.”

The study was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the researchers also received support for their time from a National Institutes of Health grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Owens had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 90% of women who self-managed medication abortion in pregnancies of 9-16 weeks’ gestation had complete abortions with no need for procedural intervention, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Although most abortions happen within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, it is important to understand the effectiveness of different models of care in a wider gestational range, corresponding author Heidi Moseson, PhD, of Ibis Reproductive Health in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“There will always be people who need abortions after 9 weeks of pregnancy,” she said, whether because of delayed recognition of the pregnancy, changes in the pregnant person’s health, a fetal diagnosis, changes in life circumstances, time required to gather money, transportation to care, or other reasons.

“This study builds on prior research from the same SAFE study cohort that established self-managed medication abortion in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy as safe and effective, and noninferior to clinician-managed abortion,” Dr. Moseson said. “With this analysis, we wanted to explore whether self-managed medication abortion remained effective after 9 weeks of pregnancy, too.”

In the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Dr. Moseson and colleagues recruited 1,352 women who were initiating self-managed medication abortion through one of three abortion-accompaniment groups in Argentina, Nigeria, and Southeast Asia between 2019 and 2020. Of these, 264 were self-managing a medication abortion at 9 or more weeks’ gestation.

Participants completed a baseline phone survey before beginning the pill regimen, and follow-up surveys at 1 week and 3 weeks after taking the pills. The average age of the participants was 26 years; 75% were at 9-11 weeks’ gestation, 19.3% were at 12-14 weeks’ gestation, and 5.7% were at 15-22 weeks’ gestation. Slightly more than half of the participants (56.4%) used a combination of mifepristone plus misoprostol, and 43.6% used misoprostol only.

The primary outcome was abortion completion. Secondary outcomes included health care seeking and treatment as well as physical experiences.

A total of 89.4% of participants had an abortion completion without the need for procedural intervention. Another 5.3% had a complete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage, 4.9% had an incomplete abortion, and one patient reported no abortion outcome.

Of the participants who sought health care during or after the self-managed abortion, 15.9% sought to confirm abortion completion, and 9.1% needed additional medical intervention, including procedural evacuation, antibiotics, additional misoprostol, intravenous fluids, blood transfusion, or an overnight stay in the health care facility.

Overall, women who were at least 12 weeks pregnant were more likely to seek care at a clinic or hospital than those who were 9-11 weeks pregnant (adjusted relative risk, 1.62).

“Particularly in the United States, the [Food and Drug Administration] label only endorsed medication abortion use through 10 weeks of pregnancy; as a result, many people in the U.S. have the incorrect assumption that the pills are not effective after 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “This isn’t true. There is no magic line at 10 or 12 weeks after which the pills stop working – in fact, the uterus becomes more sensitive, not less, to misoprostol as a pregnancy progresses. This is why the misoprostol dose is reduced by half for abortions after 12-14 weeks or so.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for gestational age and abortion outcome, without confirmation by ultrasonogram, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to randomize participants to medication regimens because of legal restrictions on abortion access within the study sites, and the small number of participants (three) who underwent self-managed medication abortion at 17-22 weeks’ gestation.
 

Data support self-management medication abortion later in pregnancy

“Many people are not aware that there is a robust randomized clinical trial literature that demonstrates that both medication abortion regimens remain highly effective up to 24-28 weeks of pregnancy,” as well as a Cochrane review, Dr. Moseson said. “We know that when these pills are administered in a clinical setting well beyond 9 weeks of pregnancy, that they are highly effective and safe.

“We did not expect that the pills would work differently just because someone takes all doses at home, rather than just the second or third dose at home, as happens in most clinician-managed medication abortions,” she noted. However, “we were interested to see differences in likelihood of health care seeking during or after the abortion by country, but in some ways, also not surprised by these differences given that the risks of seeking care and the expectations around care varied significantly across the study sites.”

Looking ahead, “as we think about the United States and we see more and more bans and restrictions on abortion care going into effect, we will see people seeking abortion later into their pregnancies due to these additional barriers people have to overcome to get care,” said Dr. Moseson. “This need for abortion care later in pregnancy extends to self-managed medication abortion, and in that light, I find the results from this study to be reassuring.

“For people who for some reason or another can’t obtain pills until they are 12 or 13 or more weeks’ pregnant, these findings suggest that people can still safely use the pills on their own to end their pregnancy,” she said. Notably, “the participants in this study had high-quality information on how to take the pills, and phone-based counseling and support available to them throughout their abortion via the accompaniment groups, so ensuring that people who self-manage with pills have accurate, accessible information on how to use the pills and monitor for warning signs is also key. 

“Additional research is needed to understand the unique informational and support needs of people who are self-managing their abortions beyond 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “What information do they need and want to feel secure and safe, what resources do they need to protect themselves from legal risk, where and how can they safely access clinical care if needed? These sorts of practical questions feel urgent, and there is much that can be learned from the activist abortion accompaniment groups around the world that have been providing this sort of informational, emotional, and physical support to aborting people for decades.”
 

Rising rate of self-managed abortions highlights need for more data

“As abortion restrictions increase in the United States, more people may choose to self-manage their abortions,” Lauren Owens, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Worldwide, self-managed abortion with accompaniment has been shown to be noninferior to medication abortion involving clinical settings at gestational ages less than 9 weeks, as shown in the SAFE study. However, legal and other logistical barriers to care may mean that people can’t access abortion care until after 9 weeks, and we need more data about the effectiveness of these medications when used outside clinical settings.”

courtesy University of Washington

Dr. Owens was not surprised by the effectiveness of the medications to end pregnancies between 9 and 16 weeks’ gestation, with few needing follow-up care. However, “it makes sense that as gestational age increases, the percent of people seeking follow-up care also increases, even as it remains a minority of people,” she said.

The World Health Organization’s guidance on self-managed abortion, issued in 2022, was similar to the regimen in the current study, she added.“Self-managed abortion at home can be very safe and effective from 9-16 weeks’ gestation,” said Dr. Owens. “Having access to accompaniment or support, such as the Medication and Abortion Hotline in the United States, can help people through the process.”

According to a recent report, “more than half the abortions in the U.S. were done using medication in 2020, and protocols developed during the pandemic helped us see how safe medication abortion can be without in-person clinic visits,” Dr. Owens said. “I would encourage clinicians who view the 9.1% rate of need for further interventions (such as intravenous fluids, suction, transfusion) in this study as high to compare this to the rate of interventions and morbidity in ongoing pregnancy.”

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the cesarean rate in the United States varies by state, but ranges from 21% to 35% of pregnancies; “some of the states with the highest cesarean rates are also those with the most abortion restrictions,” Dr. Owens said. “Abortion is generally safer than continuing pregnancy, and patients deserve access to safe options for abortion care and pregnancy care. Clinicians should know that patients can access these medications through Aid Access, accompaniment through the Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline, and legal advice through If/When/How.”

“We still need more data on self-managed abortion at higher gestational ages,” said Dr. Owens. “Few participants in the study were 14 or more weeks’ pregnant; also, despite the WHO recommendation against criminalization of self-managed abortion, we have seen criminalization for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the United States. As self-managed abortion may carry more legal than medical risks for people, creating and evaluating patient and clinician education to minimize that risk is important.”

The study was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the researchers also received support for their time from a National Institutes of Health grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Owens had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 90% of women who self-managed medication abortion in pregnancies of 9-16 weeks’ gestation had complete abortions with no need for procedural intervention, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Although most abortions happen within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, it is important to understand the effectiveness of different models of care in a wider gestational range, corresponding author Heidi Moseson, PhD, of Ibis Reproductive Health in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“There will always be people who need abortions after 9 weeks of pregnancy,” she said, whether because of delayed recognition of the pregnancy, changes in the pregnant person’s health, a fetal diagnosis, changes in life circumstances, time required to gather money, transportation to care, or other reasons.

“This study builds on prior research from the same SAFE study cohort that established self-managed medication abortion in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy as safe and effective, and noninferior to clinician-managed abortion,” Dr. Moseson said. “With this analysis, we wanted to explore whether self-managed medication abortion remained effective after 9 weeks of pregnancy, too.”

In the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Dr. Moseson and colleagues recruited 1,352 women who were initiating self-managed medication abortion through one of three abortion-accompaniment groups in Argentina, Nigeria, and Southeast Asia between 2019 and 2020. Of these, 264 were self-managing a medication abortion at 9 or more weeks’ gestation.

Participants completed a baseline phone survey before beginning the pill regimen, and follow-up surveys at 1 week and 3 weeks after taking the pills. The average age of the participants was 26 years; 75% were at 9-11 weeks’ gestation, 19.3% were at 12-14 weeks’ gestation, and 5.7% were at 15-22 weeks’ gestation. Slightly more than half of the participants (56.4%) used a combination of mifepristone plus misoprostol, and 43.6% used misoprostol only.

The primary outcome was abortion completion. Secondary outcomes included health care seeking and treatment as well as physical experiences.

A total of 89.4% of participants had an abortion completion without the need for procedural intervention. Another 5.3% had a complete abortion with manual vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage, 4.9% had an incomplete abortion, and one patient reported no abortion outcome.

Of the participants who sought health care during or after the self-managed abortion, 15.9% sought to confirm abortion completion, and 9.1% needed additional medical intervention, including procedural evacuation, antibiotics, additional misoprostol, intravenous fluids, blood transfusion, or an overnight stay in the health care facility.

Overall, women who were at least 12 weeks pregnant were more likely to seek care at a clinic or hospital than those who were 9-11 weeks pregnant (adjusted relative risk, 1.62).

“Particularly in the United States, the [Food and Drug Administration] label only endorsed medication abortion use through 10 weeks of pregnancy; as a result, many people in the U.S. have the incorrect assumption that the pills are not effective after 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “This isn’t true. There is no magic line at 10 or 12 weeks after which the pills stop working – in fact, the uterus becomes more sensitive, not less, to misoprostol as a pregnancy progresses. This is why the misoprostol dose is reduced by half for abortions after 12-14 weeks or so.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports for gestational age and abortion outcome, without confirmation by ultrasonogram, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to randomize participants to medication regimens because of legal restrictions on abortion access within the study sites, and the small number of participants (three) who underwent self-managed medication abortion at 17-22 weeks’ gestation.
 

Data support self-management medication abortion later in pregnancy

“Many people are not aware that there is a robust randomized clinical trial literature that demonstrates that both medication abortion regimens remain highly effective up to 24-28 weeks of pregnancy,” as well as a Cochrane review, Dr. Moseson said. “We know that when these pills are administered in a clinical setting well beyond 9 weeks of pregnancy, that they are highly effective and safe.

“We did not expect that the pills would work differently just because someone takes all doses at home, rather than just the second or third dose at home, as happens in most clinician-managed medication abortions,” she noted. However, “we were interested to see differences in likelihood of health care seeking during or after the abortion by country, but in some ways, also not surprised by these differences given that the risks of seeking care and the expectations around care varied significantly across the study sites.”

Looking ahead, “as we think about the United States and we see more and more bans and restrictions on abortion care going into effect, we will see people seeking abortion later into their pregnancies due to these additional barriers people have to overcome to get care,” said Dr. Moseson. “This need for abortion care later in pregnancy extends to self-managed medication abortion, and in that light, I find the results from this study to be reassuring.

“For people who for some reason or another can’t obtain pills until they are 12 or 13 or more weeks’ pregnant, these findings suggest that people can still safely use the pills on their own to end their pregnancy,” she said. Notably, “the participants in this study had high-quality information on how to take the pills, and phone-based counseling and support available to them throughout their abortion via the accompaniment groups, so ensuring that people who self-manage with pills have accurate, accessible information on how to use the pills and monitor for warning signs is also key. 

“Additional research is needed to understand the unique informational and support needs of people who are self-managing their abortions beyond 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Dr. Moseson said. “What information do they need and want to feel secure and safe, what resources do they need to protect themselves from legal risk, where and how can they safely access clinical care if needed? These sorts of practical questions feel urgent, and there is much that can be learned from the activist abortion accompaniment groups around the world that have been providing this sort of informational, emotional, and physical support to aborting people for decades.”
 

Rising rate of self-managed abortions highlights need for more data

“As abortion restrictions increase in the United States, more people may choose to self-manage their abortions,” Lauren Owens, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Worldwide, self-managed abortion with accompaniment has been shown to be noninferior to medication abortion involving clinical settings at gestational ages less than 9 weeks, as shown in the SAFE study. However, legal and other logistical barriers to care may mean that people can’t access abortion care until after 9 weeks, and we need more data about the effectiveness of these medications when used outside clinical settings.”

courtesy University of Washington

Dr. Owens was not surprised by the effectiveness of the medications to end pregnancies between 9 and 16 weeks’ gestation, with few needing follow-up care. However, “it makes sense that as gestational age increases, the percent of people seeking follow-up care also increases, even as it remains a minority of people,” she said.

The World Health Organization’s guidance on self-managed abortion, issued in 2022, was similar to the regimen in the current study, she added.“Self-managed abortion at home can be very safe and effective from 9-16 weeks’ gestation,” said Dr. Owens. “Having access to accompaniment or support, such as the Medication and Abortion Hotline in the United States, can help people through the process.”

According to a recent report, “more than half the abortions in the U.S. were done using medication in 2020, and protocols developed during the pandemic helped us see how safe medication abortion can be without in-person clinic visits,” Dr. Owens said. “I would encourage clinicians who view the 9.1% rate of need for further interventions (such as intravenous fluids, suction, transfusion) in this study as high to compare this to the rate of interventions and morbidity in ongoing pregnancy.”

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the cesarean rate in the United States varies by state, but ranges from 21% to 35% of pregnancies; “some of the states with the highest cesarean rates are also those with the most abortion restrictions,” Dr. Owens said. “Abortion is generally safer than continuing pregnancy, and patients deserve access to safe options for abortion care and pregnancy care. Clinicians should know that patients can access these medications through Aid Access, accompaniment through the Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline, and legal advice through If/When/How.”

“We still need more data on self-managed abortion at higher gestational ages,” said Dr. Owens. “Few participants in the study were 14 or more weeks’ pregnant; also, despite the WHO recommendation against criminalization of self-managed abortion, we have seen criminalization for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the United States. As self-managed abortion may carry more legal than medical risks for people, creating and evaluating patient and clinician education to minimize that risk is important.”

The study was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the researchers also received support for their time from a National Institutes of Health grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Owens had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.

Among patients with female pattern hair loss taking low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for at least 4 months, minimal changes from baseline were observed in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate, results from a small retrospective analysis showed.

“Additionally, few patients experienced hair loss progression while slightly over a third experienced hair regrowth,” the study’s first author, Reese Imhof, MD, a third-year resident in the department of dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The results were published online in JAAD International.

At low doses, oral minoxidil, approved as an antihypertensive over 40 years ago, has become an increasingly popular treatment for hair loss, particularly since an article about its use for hair loss was published in the New York Times in August 2022. (Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating alopecia, and is used off label for this purpose.)

To evaluate the effects of LDOM in female patients with female pattern hair loss, Dr. Imhof, along with colleagues Beija Villalpando, MD, of the department of medicine and Rochelle R. Torgerson, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, reviewed the records of 25 adult women who were evaluated for female pattern hair loss at the Mayo Clinic over a 5-year period that ended on Nov. 27, 2022. Previous studies have looked at the cardiovascular effects of treatment with oral minoxidil and impact on BP in men, but “few studies have reported on female patients receiving LDOM as monotherapy for female pattern hair loss,” the authors noted.

The mean age of the women in their study was 61 years, and they took LDOM for a mean of 6.2 months. Slightly more than half (52%) took a dose of 1.25 mg daily, while 40% took 2.5 mg daily and 8% took 0.625 mg daily.

Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had previously tried topical minoxidil but had discontinued it because of local side effects or challenges with adherence. Also, three patients (12%) had previously tried finasteride and spironolactone but discontinued those medications because of adverse side effects.

The researchers noted disease improvement and hair regrowth was observed in nine patients who were treated with LDOM (36%), while three patients (12%) had “unaltered disease progression.” Adverse side effects observed in the cohort included four patients with facial hypertrichosis (16%) and one patient with fluid retention/lower limb edema (4%).

The patients who developed hypertrichosis did not discontinue LDOM, but the patient who developed edema did stop treatment.

At baseline, systolic BP (SBP) ranged from 107-161 mm Hg, diastolic BP (DBP) ranged from 58-88 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 54-114 beats per minute. Post treatment, SBP ranged from 102-152 mm Hg, DBP ranged from 63-90 mm Hg, and heart rate ranged from 56 to 105 bpm. “It was surprising how little ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate changed after an average of 6 months of treatment,” Dr. Imhof said in an interview. “On average, SBP decreased by 2.8 mm HG while DBP decreased by 1.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased an average of 4.4 beats per minute.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and lack of inclusion of patients who were being treated for hypertension with concomitant antihypertensive medications. “Some unique aspects of our study are that we focused on women, and we had a slightly older cohort than prior studies (61 years old on average) as well as exposure to higher doses of LDOM, with most patients on either 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg daily,” Dr. Imhof said.

The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures, and there was no funding source for the study.

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.