Ob.Gyn. News

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Novel food for thought

When you were growing up, your parents probably told you to brush your teeth before you went to bed, warned you not to run with the scissors or play with matches, and punished you whenever you used the neighbor children to play Schrödinger’s cat.

World Wildlife/StockSnap

They did those things for your own good, of course, and now the nation’s mother – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – is doing the same by warning us about novel outbreak–associated foods. As in, “Put down that novel outbreak–associated food! You don’t know where it’s been!”

Seriously, you don’t know where it’s been. CDC investigators identified 28 novel foods that were linked to 36 foodborne-disease outbreaks that occurred during 2007-2016, including moringa leaf (herb/spice), tempeh (grain), frog, sprouted nut butter, and skate.

The novel foods implicated in these outbreaks were more likely to be imported, compared with 14,216 outbreaks that occurred from 1973 to 2016, and about half didn’t require refrigeration. Two-thirds did not need to be cooked after purchase. Another thing your parents wouldn’t like: Some can’t be washed, like sheep milk, sugar cane, or the aforementioned nut butter.

We wanted to get a food expert to comment on these novel foods, but our editor said that the assistant manager of our local Burger King wasn’t expert enough, so we’ve commandeered someone else’s expert. Cynthia Sears, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told Today.com all about the dangers of frogs: “Essentially all amphibians are contaminated, often with salmonella. Eating any amphibian that is not thoroughly cooked is a risk.”

Be sure to cook your amphibians before you eat them. Advice that your parents would be proud to share.
 

Dieters should stay away from diet drinks

When a drink is labeled “diet” many assume that the calorie-free beverage is the best choice. However, one of the largest studies to date on artificial sweeteners is out to set the record straight.

American Heart Association

Artificial sweeteners, or nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), are used in most if not all diet products to give the illusion of sweetness without the caloric guilt. Some studies say they help with weight loss for that very reason, but others say they can contribute to weight gain. So which is it?

Researchers at the University of Southern California sought to add some clarity to the research already out there.

They looked at an even-gendered split of 74 participants who drank 300 mL of drinks sweetened with NNS, table sugar, or water. The researchers then used functional MRI to see how parts of the brain responsible for appetite and cravings responded to images of high-calorie foods. They also looked at glucose, insulin, and other metabolic hormone levels, as well as how much food the participants ate at their free buffet. (In the participants’ defense, who can say no to a free buffet?)

The researchers made some interesting observations:

• Women who drank the NNS drink ate more than did the table-sugar group, but all men ate the same.
• Images of those calorie-packed goodies increased cravings and appetite for obese men and women in the NNS group, compared with the table-sugar group.
• For all participants who drank the NNS drink, there was a decrease in the hormone that tells the body it’s full.

“By studying different groups we were able to show that females and people with obesity may be more sensitive to artificial sweeteners. For these groups, drinking artificially sweetened drinks may trick the brain into feeling hungry, which may in turn result in more calories being consumed,” Kathleen Page, MD, the study’s corresponding author, said in a separate statement.

Today’s lesson? Don’t believe every label you read.
 

Instagram vegetables and the triumph of peer pressure

You and your family are sitting down for dinner. You’ve taken the time to prepare a healthy, nutritious meal. Vegetables, rice, seafood – all the right things. But the children around you refuse to partake. What can you do? Why, show them a highly liked photo of broccoli on Instagram!

Teresa Burton/IMNG Medical Media

In reality, kids will probably never like to eat their vegetables, but according to a study published in Appetite, viewing highly liked images on social media can compel adults to eat theirs.

The investigators recruited a group of 169 adults aged 18-28 (average age, 21) and showed them a series of mock Instagram posts of all sorts of food, everything from Brussels sprouts to chocolate cake, as well as nonfood images to act as a baseline. The images had a varying amount of likes. After viewing the images, study participants were offered a snack buffet consisting of grapes and cookies.

The results were a triumph of peer pressure. Those who viewed highly liked images of nutritious foods ate a significantly larger proportion of grapes, compared with those who saw highly liked images of unhealthy food or nonfood.

The authors cautioned that more research is needed, but they said that they’re onto something in the eternal struggle of getting people to eat better. If Mikey liked it, maybe you should, too. Just as long as you don’t try to encourage the eating of peas. That is a dark road none should take, and no one should ever be subjected to that cursed food.
 

It’s nice to share … hypertension?

You may have heard that, over time, you begin to resemble your spouse. You may have also heard that, as time goes by, your pet might start to resemble you, but that is a story for another time.

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A lot of the time, it’s human nature that people partner with someone who is similar to them in physical and environmental status. If you like to go jogging at 5 a.m., you might want a spouse who does the same. A study done using data from couples in Japan and the Netherlands found that couples who had the same lifestyle had similar levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also had similar illnesses such as hypertension and diabetes.

It’s important to note that many of the couples were not very genetically similar but had similar lifestyles. Encourage your partner to have a healthier lifestyle, so you can live on for many years to come!

Novel food for thought

When you were growing up, your parents probably told you to brush your teeth before you went to bed, warned you not to run with the scissors or play with matches, and punished you whenever you used the neighbor children to play Schrödinger’s cat.

World Wildlife/StockSnap

They did those things for your own good, of course, and now the nation’s mother – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – is doing the same by warning us about novel outbreak–associated foods. As in, “Put down that novel outbreak–associated food! You don’t know where it’s been!”

Seriously, you don’t know where it’s been. CDC investigators identified 28 novel foods that were linked to 36 foodborne-disease outbreaks that occurred during 2007-2016, including moringa leaf (herb/spice), tempeh (grain), frog, sprouted nut butter, and skate.

The novel foods implicated in these outbreaks were more likely to be imported, compared with 14,216 outbreaks that occurred from 1973 to 2016, and about half didn’t require refrigeration. Two-thirds did not need to be cooked after purchase. Another thing your parents wouldn’t like: Some can’t be washed, like sheep milk, sugar cane, or the aforementioned nut butter.

We wanted to get a food expert to comment on these novel foods, but our editor said that the assistant manager of our local Burger King wasn’t expert enough, so we’ve commandeered someone else’s expert. Cynthia Sears, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told Today.com all about the dangers of frogs: “Essentially all amphibians are contaminated, often with salmonella. Eating any amphibian that is not thoroughly cooked is a risk.”

Be sure to cook your amphibians before you eat them. Advice that your parents would be proud to share.
 

Dieters should stay away from diet drinks

When a drink is labeled “diet” many assume that the calorie-free beverage is the best choice. However, one of the largest studies to date on artificial sweeteners is out to set the record straight.

American Heart Association

Artificial sweeteners, or nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), are used in most if not all diet products to give the illusion of sweetness without the caloric guilt. Some studies say they help with weight loss for that very reason, but others say they can contribute to weight gain. So which is it?

Researchers at the University of Southern California sought to add some clarity to the research already out there.

They looked at an even-gendered split of 74 participants who drank 300 mL of drinks sweetened with NNS, table sugar, or water. The researchers then used functional MRI to see how parts of the brain responsible for appetite and cravings responded to images of high-calorie foods. They also looked at glucose, insulin, and other metabolic hormone levels, as well as how much food the participants ate at their free buffet. (In the participants’ defense, who can say no to a free buffet?)

The researchers made some interesting observations:

• Women who drank the NNS drink ate more than did the table-sugar group, but all men ate the same.
• Images of those calorie-packed goodies increased cravings and appetite for obese men and women in the NNS group, compared with the table-sugar group.
• For all participants who drank the NNS drink, there was a decrease in the hormone that tells the body it’s full.

“By studying different groups we were able to show that females and people with obesity may be more sensitive to artificial sweeteners. For these groups, drinking artificially sweetened drinks may trick the brain into feeling hungry, which may in turn result in more calories being consumed,” Kathleen Page, MD, the study’s corresponding author, said in a separate statement.

Today’s lesson? Don’t believe every label you read.
 

Instagram vegetables and the triumph of peer pressure

You and your family are sitting down for dinner. You’ve taken the time to prepare a healthy, nutritious meal. Vegetables, rice, seafood – all the right things. But the children around you refuse to partake. What can you do? Why, show them a highly liked photo of broccoli on Instagram!

Teresa Burton/IMNG Medical Media

In reality, kids will probably never like to eat their vegetables, but according to a study published in Appetite, viewing highly liked images on social media can compel adults to eat theirs.

The investigators recruited a group of 169 adults aged 18-28 (average age, 21) and showed them a series of mock Instagram posts of all sorts of food, everything from Brussels sprouts to chocolate cake, as well as nonfood images to act as a baseline. The images had a varying amount of likes. After viewing the images, study participants were offered a snack buffet consisting of grapes and cookies.

The results were a triumph of peer pressure. Those who viewed highly liked images of nutritious foods ate a significantly larger proportion of grapes, compared with those who saw highly liked images of unhealthy food or nonfood.

The authors cautioned that more research is needed, but they said that they’re onto something in the eternal struggle of getting people to eat better. If Mikey liked it, maybe you should, too. Just as long as you don’t try to encourage the eating of peas. That is a dark road none should take, and no one should ever be subjected to that cursed food.
 

It’s nice to share … hypertension?

You may have heard that, over time, you begin to resemble your spouse. You may have also heard that, as time goes by, your pet might start to resemble you, but that is a story for another time.

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A lot of the time, it’s human nature that people partner with someone who is similar to them in physical and environmental status. If you like to go jogging at 5 a.m., you might want a spouse who does the same. A study done using data from couples in Japan and the Netherlands found that couples who had the same lifestyle had similar levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also had similar illnesses such as hypertension and diabetes.

It’s important to note that many of the couples were not very genetically similar but had similar lifestyles. Encourage your partner to have a healthier lifestyle, so you can live on for many years to come!

Novel food for thought

When you were growing up, your parents probably told you to brush your teeth before you went to bed, warned you not to run with the scissors or play with matches, and punished you whenever you used the neighbor children to play Schrödinger’s cat.

World Wildlife/StockSnap

They did those things for your own good, of course, and now the nation’s mother – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – is doing the same by warning us about novel outbreak–associated foods. As in, “Put down that novel outbreak–associated food! You don’t know where it’s been!”

Seriously, you don’t know where it’s been. CDC investigators identified 28 novel foods that were linked to 36 foodborne-disease outbreaks that occurred during 2007-2016, including moringa leaf (herb/spice), tempeh (grain), frog, sprouted nut butter, and skate.

The novel foods implicated in these outbreaks were more likely to be imported, compared with 14,216 outbreaks that occurred from 1973 to 2016, and about half didn’t require refrigeration. Two-thirds did not need to be cooked after purchase. Another thing your parents wouldn’t like: Some can’t be washed, like sheep milk, sugar cane, or the aforementioned nut butter.

We wanted to get a food expert to comment on these novel foods, but our editor said that the assistant manager of our local Burger King wasn’t expert enough, so we’ve commandeered someone else’s expert. Cynthia Sears, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told Today.com all about the dangers of frogs: “Essentially all amphibians are contaminated, often with salmonella. Eating any amphibian that is not thoroughly cooked is a risk.”

Be sure to cook your amphibians before you eat them. Advice that your parents would be proud to share.
 

Dieters should stay away from diet drinks

When a drink is labeled “diet” many assume that the calorie-free beverage is the best choice. However, one of the largest studies to date on artificial sweeteners is out to set the record straight.

American Heart Association

Artificial sweeteners, or nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), are used in most if not all diet products to give the illusion of sweetness without the caloric guilt. Some studies say they help with weight loss for that very reason, but others say they can contribute to weight gain. So which is it?

Researchers at the University of Southern California sought to add some clarity to the research already out there.

They looked at an even-gendered split of 74 participants who drank 300 mL of drinks sweetened with NNS, table sugar, or water. The researchers then used functional MRI to see how parts of the brain responsible for appetite and cravings responded to images of high-calorie foods. They also looked at glucose, insulin, and other metabolic hormone levels, as well as how much food the participants ate at their free buffet. (In the participants’ defense, who can say no to a free buffet?)

The researchers made some interesting observations:

• Women who drank the NNS drink ate more than did the table-sugar group, but all men ate the same.
• Images of those calorie-packed goodies increased cravings and appetite for obese men and women in the NNS group, compared with the table-sugar group.
• For all participants who drank the NNS drink, there was a decrease in the hormone that tells the body it’s full.

“By studying different groups we were able to show that females and people with obesity may be more sensitive to artificial sweeteners. For these groups, drinking artificially sweetened drinks may trick the brain into feeling hungry, which may in turn result in more calories being consumed,” Kathleen Page, MD, the study’s corresponding author, said in a separate statement.

Today’s lesson? Don’t believe every label you read.
 

Instagram vegetables and the triumph of peer pressure

You and your family are sitting down for dinner. You’ve taken the time to prepare a healthy, nutritious meal. Vegetables, rice, seafood – all the right things. But the children around you refuse to partake. What can you do? Why, show them a highly liked photo of broccoli on Instagram!

Teresa Burton/IMNG Medical Media

In reality, kids will probably never like to eat their vegetables, but according to a study published in Appetite, viewing highly liked images on social media can compel adults to eat theirs.

The investigators recruited a group of 169 adults aged 18-28 (average age, 21) and showed them a series of mock Instagram posts of all sorts of food, everything from Brussels sprouts to chocolate cake, as well as nonfood images to act as a baseline. The images had a varying amount of likes. After viewing the images, study participants were offered a snack buffet consisting of grapes and cookies.

The results were a triumph of peer pressure. Those who viewed highly liked images of nutritious foods ate a significantly larger proportion of grapes, compared with those who saw highly liked images of unhealthy food or nonfood.

The authors cautioned that more research is needed, but they said that they’re onto something in the eternal struggle of getting people to eat better. If Mikey liked it, maybe you should, too. Just as long as you don’t try to encourage the eating of peas. That is a dark road none should take, and no one should ever be subjected to that cursed food.
 

It’s nice to share … hypertension?

You may have heard that, over time, you begin to resemble your spouse. You may have also heard that, as time goes by, your pet might start to resemble you, but that is a story for another time.

sabelskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A lot of the time, it’s human nature that people partner with someone who is similar to them in physical and environmental status. If you like to go jogging at 5 a.m., you might want a spouse who does the same. A study done using data from couples in Japan and the Netherlands found that couples who had the same lifestyle had similar levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also had similar illnesses such as hypertension and diabetes.

It’s important to note that many of the couples were not very genetically similar but had similar lifestyles. Encourage your partner to have a healthier lifestyle, so you can live on for many years to come!

COVID vaccination rates among pregnant people remain low, despite data that shows the vaccines can prevent the high risk of severe disease during pregnancy.

About 30% of pregnant people are vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data, with only 18% obtaining a dose during pregnancy. Health officials have been tracking the timing of vaccination before and during pregnancy.

The vaccination rates are even lower among pregnant Black people, CDC data shows. About 15% are fully vaccinated, compared with 25% of pregnant Hispanic and Latino people, 34% of pregnant White people, and 46% of pregnant Asian people.

“This puts them at severe risk of severe disease from COVID-19,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“We know that pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease, of hospitalization and ventilation,” she said. “They’re also at increased risk for adverse events to their baby.”

Those who give birth while infected with COVID-19 had “significantly higher rates” of intensive care unit admission, intubation, ventilation, and death, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Walensky said on Sept. 28 that studies show COVID-19 vaccines can be taken at any time while pregnant or breastfeeding. She noted that the vaccines are safe for both mothers and their babies.

“We’ve actually seen that some antibody from the vaccine traverses [the placenta] to the baby and, in fact, could potentially protect the baby,” she said.

Public health officials say the low vaccination rates can be attributed to caution around the time of pregnancy, concern for the baby, barriers to health care, and misinformation promoted online.

“Pregnancy is a precious time. It’s also a time that a lot of women have fear,” Pam Oliver, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology doctor and executive vice president of North Carolina’s Novant Health, told USA Today.

“It is natural to have questions,” she said. “So, let’s talk about what we know, let’s put it in perspective.”

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

COVID vaccination rates among pregnant people remain low, despite data that shows the vaccines can prevent the high risk of severe disease during pregnancy.

About 30% of pregnant people are vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data, with only 18% obtaining a dose during pregnancy. Health officials have been tracking the timing of vaccination before and during pregnancy.

The vaccination rates are even lower among pregnant Black people, CDC data shows. About 15% are fully vaccinated, compared with 25% of pregnant Hispanic and Latino people, 34% of pregnant White people, and 46% of pregnant Asian people.

“This puts them at severe risk of severe disease from COVID-19,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“We know that pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease, of hospitalization and ventilation,” she said. “They’re also at increased risk for adverse events to their baby.”

Those who give birth while infected with COVID-19 had “significantly higher rates” of intensive care unit admission, intubation, ventilation, and death, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Walensky said on Sept. 28 that studies show COVID-19 vaccines can be taken at any time while pregnant or breastfeeding. She noted that the vaccines are safe for both mothers and their babies.

“We’ve actually seen that some antibody from the vaccine traverses [the placenta] to the baby and, in fact, could potentially protect the baby,” she said.

Public health officials say the low vaccination rates can be attributed to caution around the time of pregnancy, concern for the baby, barriers to health care, and misinformation promoted online.

“Pregnancy is a precious time. It’s also a time that a lot of women have fear,” Pam Oliver, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology doctor and executive vice president of North Carolina’s Novant Health, told USA Today.

“It is natural to have questions,” she said. “So, let’s talk about what we know, let’s put it in perspective.”

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

COVID vaccination rates among pregnant people remain low, despite data that shows the vaccines can prevent the high risk of severe disease during pregnancy.

About 30% of pregnant people are vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data, with only 18% obtaining a dose during pregnancy. Health officials have been tracking the timing of vaccination before and during pregnancy.

The vaccination rates are even lower among pregnant Black people, CDC data shows. About 15% are fully vaccinated, compared with 25% of pregnant Hispanic and Latino people, 34% of pregnant White people, and 46% of pregnant Asian people.

“This puts them at severe risk of severe disease from COVID-19,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“We know that pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease, of hospitalization and ventilation,” she said. “They’re also at increased risk for adverse events to their baby.”

Those who give birth while infected with COVID-19 had “significantly higher rates” of intensive care unit admission, intubation, ventilation, and death, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Walensky said on Sept. 28 that studies show COVID-19 vaccines can be taken at any time while pregnant or breastfeeding. She noted that the vaccines are safe for both mothers and their babies.

“We’ve actually seen that some antibody from the vaccine traverses [the placenta] to the baby and, in fact, could potentially protect the baby,” she said.

Public health officials say the low vaccination rates can be attributed to caution around the time of pregnancy, concern for the baby, barriers to health care, and misinformation promoted online.

“Pregnancy is a precious time. It’s also a time that a lot of women have fear,” Pam Oliver, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology doctor and executive vice president of North Carolina’s Novant Health, told USA Today.

“It is natural to have questions,” she said. “So, let’s talk about what we know, let’s put it in perspective.”

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

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Women who have taken hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms will be relieved by findings from a large British case-control study reporting no overall increased risk of dementia as long as exposure is not long term.

Publishing results online Sept. 29 in BMJ, ( Yana Vinogradova, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues made this observation after conducting nested case-control studies involving more than 700,000 women in two U.K. primary care databases. The investigators undertook the study to clarify disparate findings over the past 2 decades on dementia risk associated with menopausal hormone replacement,

“The findings show that menopausal hormone therapy, or MHT, is generally safe for women who require it,” Dr. Vinogradova said in an interview. “A small risk association was found for future development of Alzheimer’s disease increasing with the length of menopausal hormone treatment.” This finding applied only to combined treatments of estrogen plus progestin and became measurable only after long-term use of 5 years or more. “These risk associations, only for long-term use of MHT, are in line with findings related to breast cancer risk,” she said.

The findings also align with previous biological speculations that estrogen combined with progestin may have a harmful effect on the aging brain, she added, “but we also cannot completely rule out other possible factors from our study. For example, some women who were in fact suffering from early signs of Alzheimer’s disease similar to menopausal symptoms may have continued with their menopausal therapy for longer than other women.”

Concerns about the risk of dementia with MHT date back to 2003 when data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study showed that incidence of all-cause dementia doubled in women age 65 years and older after treatment with conjugated equine estrogens and medroxyprogesterone acetate for an average of 4 years. More recently, Finnish research has yielded conflicting data about risks.

The study

The investigators used two U.K. primary care databases (QResearch and CPRD) to analyze MHT prescriptions for 118,501 women age 55 and older diagnosed with dementia between 1998 and 2020 and 497,416 female controls matched by age and general practice, but with no record of dementia.

The cohort was older: mean age of cases was 83.5 years and mean duration of treatment was 16 years for an average age of 67.7 at first captured prescription, considerably later than when most women begin MHT. Relevant factors such as family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, preexisting conditions, and other prescribed drugs were taken into account.

Overall, 16,291 (14%) dementia cases and 68,726 (14%) controls had been exposed to MHT in the period up to 3 years before diagnosis.

After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, the researchers found no overall associations between hormone therapy and risk of dementia, regardless of hormone type, application, dose, or duration of treatment. Within the subgroup of women younger than 80 years who had been taking estrogen-only therapy for 10 years or more, a slightly decreased risk of dementia emerged: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94.

However, an analysis of dementia cases with a diagnosis specifically of Alzheimer’s disease showed a slight increase in risk associated with estrogen-progestin therapy. Increased risks of developing specifically Alzheimer’s disease emerged in those who had used combination therapy for 5-9 years (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20) and also for 10 years or more (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33). This risk rose gradually with each year of exposure, reaching an average 11% increased risk for use from 5-9 years and an average 19% for use 10 years or more – equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman-years.

According to Jill M. Rabin, MD, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and an ob.gyn. with Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., the findings make sense for two reasons. “First, there are other health issues noted in women taking long-term combination hormonal therapy such as an increased risk of breast cancer,” she said in an interview. “Second, progesterone is recommended for women who have retained their uterus in order to counteract the potential effects of estrogen on the uterine lining causing possible overgrowth. There are systemic effects however of progesterone, as it counteracts estrogen, potentially decreasing its benefit on the neurological system.”

She added that this analysis is synchronous with other biological studies demonstrating possible neuroprotective effects of estrogen on the brain, especially among younger women. “The vascular system in the newly menopausal female is noted to have less endothelial and intimal thickening, better blood flow and oxygenation, and in general less vascular damage. Estrogen in these relatively younger, newly menopausal women may help to stabilize the vasculature as well as the neurologic system. On the other hand, estrogen therapy over the age of 80 may be delivered to a neurovasculature damaged with age and time, may be somewhat less beneficial.” Older women also have fewer estrogen receptors and, in general, other medical comorbidities.

According to the authors, the findings will be helpful to policy-makers, doctors, and patients when making choices about hormone therapy.

In an accompanying editorial, two U.S. researchers called the findings reassuring. Pauline M. Maki, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, however, pointed out that the current study with its older cohort and older age at MHT initiation could not address the important issue of the “timing hypothesis” – namely, that earlier initiation of hormone therapy might confer greater protection against Alzheimer’s disease, compared with later use.

And while the current observations do not change the recommendation that MHT should not be used to prevent dementia, they are helpful for providers to put dementia findings in context for patients. “The primary indication for hormone therapy continues to be the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and the current study should provide reassurance for women and their providers when treatment is prescribed for that reason,” they wrote.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.

Coauthor Dr. Julia Hippisley-Cox is a director of QResearch, EMIS Health, which supplies the QResearch database used for this work, and is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk., which produces software to implement clinical risk algorithms.

Women with a history of migraine are more likely to experience severe or very severe hot flashes than women without migraines, according to research presented Sept. 24 at the hybrid annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. An estimated one in five women experience migraine, and women tend to have greater migraine symptoms and disability, the authors note in their background information. Since migraines are also linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, the authors sought to learn whether migraines were associated with vasomotor symptoms, another cardiovascular risk factor.

“The question in my mind is, can we do better at predicting cardiovascular risk in women because the risk prediction models that we have really don’t work all that well in women because they were designed for use in men,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, Penny and Bill George Director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health said in an interview. “My ultimate goal is to see if we can somehow use big data, artificial intelligence to figure out how to weight some of these female-specific or female-predominant factors to come up with a better model for cardiovascular risk prediction.”

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional data from 3,308 women who participated in the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause and Sexuality (DREAMS) study through Mayo Clinic sites in Rochester, Minn.; Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Jacksonville, Fla.. The women ranged in age from 45 to 60 years old, with an average age of 53, and the vast majority of them were white (95%) and had at least some college (93%). Most were also in a long-term relationship (85%), and a majority were employed (69%) and postmenopausal (67%).

The data, collected between May 2015 and December 2019, included a self-reported history of migraine and questionnaires that included the Menopause Rating Scale of menopause-related symptoms.

The researchers adjusted their findings to account for body mass index (BMI), menopause status, smoking status, depression, anxiety, current use of hormone therapy, and presence of low back pain within the past year. ”The diagnosis of low back pain, another pain disorder, was used to test the specificity of the association of migraine and vasomotor symptoms,” the authors write.

Just over a quarter of the women (27%) reported a history of migraine, and these women’s Menopause Rating Scale scores were an average 1.36 points greater than women without a history of migraines (P < .001). Women with self-reported migraine were also 40% more likely than women without migraines to report severe or very severe flashes versus reporting no hot flashes at all (odds ratio, 1.4; P = .02).

“The odds of reporting more severe hot flashes increased monotonically in women with a history of migraine,” the authors report. “In addition, women with low back pain had higher Menopause Rating Scale scores, but were no more likely to have severe/very severe hot flashes than those without back pain, confirming the specificity of the link between vasomotor symptoms and migraine.”

It’s not clear if migraine or hot flashes are risk factors that add to a woman’s existing cardiovascular risk profile or whether they are simply biomarkers of a shared pathway, Dr Faubion said in an interview. She speculates that the common link between migraine and vasomotor symptoms could be neurovascular dysregulation.

Rachael B. Smith, DO, of the department of ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, was not involved in the research but found that hypothesis plausible as well.

“Our neurologic and vascular systems are coordinated physiologic processes working together for basic brain and body function,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. Some of the symptoms of migraines and menopause are similar and both are often explained by the dysfunction of these systems. The association between history of migraines and severity of vasomotor symptoms is very likely to be explained by this dysregulation between the neurologic and vascular systems.”

Dr. Smith also pointed out, however, that the largely homogeneous study population, all from the same national clinic system, makes it difficult to know how generalizable these findings are.

The primary clinical implications of these findings are that women’s providers need to be sure they’re asking their patients about migraine history and symptoms.

“The counseling we provide on menopausal symptoms should be better tailored to our patients’ medical history, specifically inquiring about history of migraines and how this may impact their symptoms,” Dr. Smith said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Faubion and Dr. Smith had no disclosures.