Ob.Gyn. News

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Nearly half of people who are hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer at least one lingering symptom 1 year after discharge, according to the largest study yet to assess the dynamic recovery of a group of COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the illness.

The most common lingering symptoms are fatigue and muscle weakness. One-third continue to have shortness of breath.

Overall, at 12 months, COVID-19 survivors had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had lower self-assessment scores of quality of life than matched COVID-free peers, the investigators report. 

The study was published online Aug. 28 in The Lancet.

“While most had made a good recovery, health problems persisted in some patients, especially those who had been critically ill during their hospital stay,” Bin Cao, MD, from the National Center for Respiratory Medicine at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, both in Beijing, said in a Lancet news release.

“Our findings suggest that recovery for some patients will take longer than 1 year, and this should be taken into account when planning delivery of health care services post pandemic,” Dr. Cao said.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the need to understand and respond to long COVID is increasingly pressing,” says a Lancet editorial.

“Symptoms such as persistent fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog, and depression could debilitate many millions of people globally. Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order,” it reads.
 

Study details

Dr. Cao and colleagues studied 1,276 COVID-19 patients (median age 59; 53% men) discharged from a hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan. 7 and May 29, 2020. The patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months from the date they first experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Many symptoms resolved over time, regardless of the severity of illness. Yet 49% of patients still had at least one symptom 12 months after their acute illness, down from 68% at the 6-month mark, the authors report.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms seen in 52% of patients at 6 months and 20% at 12 months. Compared with men, women were 1.4 times more likely to report fatigue or muscle weakness.

Patients treated with corticosteroids during the acute phase of COVID-19 were 1.5 times as likely to experience fatigue or muscle weakness after 12 months, compared with those who had not received corticosteroids.

Thirty percent of patients reported dyspnea at 12 months, slightly more than at 6 months (26%). Dyspnea was more common in the most severely ill patients needing a ventilator during their hospital stay (39%), compared with those who did not need oxygen treatment (25%).

At the 6-month check, 349 study participants underwent pulmonary function tests and 244 of those patients completed the same test at 12 months.

Spirometric and lung volume parameters of most of these patients were within normal limits at 12 months. But lung diffusion impairment was observed in about 20%-30% of patients who had been moderately ill with COVID-19 and as high as 54% in critically ill patients. 

Compared with men, women were almost three times as likely to have lung diffusion impairment after 12 months.

Of 186 patients with abnormal lung CT scan at 6 months, 118 patients had a repeat CT scan at 12 months. The lung imaging abnormality gradually recovered during follow-up, yet 76% of the most critically ill patients still had ground glass opacity at 12 months.

Mental health hit

Among those patients who had been employed full- or part-time before catching COVID, the majority had returned to their original job (88%) and most had returned to their pre-COVID-19 level of work (76%) within 12 months.

Among those who did not return to their original work, 32% cited decreased physical function, 25% were unwilling to do their previous job, and 18% were unemployed.

As shown in multiple other studies, COVID-19 can take a toll on mental health. In this cohort, slightly more patients reported anxiety or depression at 12 months than at 6 months (23% vs. 26%), and the proportion was much greater than in matched community-dwelling adults without COVID-19 (5%).

Compared with men, women were twice as likely to report anxiety or depression.

“We do not yet fully understand why psychiatric symptoms are slightly more common at 1 year than at 6 months in COVID-19 survivors,” study author Xiaoying Gu, PhD, from the Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, said in the news release.

“These could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it. Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health, or loss of employment associated with illness. Large, long-term studies of COVID-19 survivors are needed so that we can better understand the long-term physical and mental health consequences of COVID-19,” Dr. Gu said.

The authors caution that the findings represent a group of patients from a single hospital in China and the cohort included only a small number of patients who had been admitted to intensive care (94 of 1,276; 7.4%).

The Lancet editorial urges the scientific and medical community to “collaborate to explore the mechanism and pathogenesis of long COVID, estimate the global and regional disease burdens, better delineate who is most at risk, understand how vaccines might affect the condition, and find effective treatments via randomized controlled trials.”

“At the same time, health care providers must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualized, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce involving physical, cognitive, social, and occupational elements,” the editorial states.

“Answering these research questions while providing compassionate and multidisciplinary care will require the full breadth of scientific and medical ingenuity. It is a challenge to which the whole health community must rise,” the editorialists conclude.

The study was funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, the China Evergrande Group, the Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, the Ping An Insurance (Group), and the New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The full list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast cancer screening rates at community health centers (CHCs) in the United States declined during the pandemic, particularly among Black and uninsured individuals, based on a retrospective look at 32 sites.

Still, drops in screening were less dramatic than national declines previously reported, possibly because of the American Cancer Society–directed CHANGE program, which was simultaneously underway at the CHCs involved, reported lead author Stacey A. Fedewa, PhD, senior principal scientist at the ACS in Atlanta, and colleagues.

“This is one of the first studies to examine breast cancer screening rates during the pandemic specifically among clinics providing care to communities of color and lower income populations, a group with lower utilization of and greater barriers to [breast cancer] screening,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “This is important because these populations have longstanding barriers to accessing care, lower breast screening rates, higher breast cancer mortality rates, and are especially vulnerable to health care disruptions.”

According to a previous analysis of electronic health records by Mast and Munoz del Rio, breast cancer screening rates in the United States dropped 94% in March/April 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. Although a recent follow-up report showed a rebound in breast cancer screening, the estimated rate remains 13% below average.

The present study evaluated data from 32 out of 1,385 CHCs in the United States. All centers were involved in the ACS-run CHANGE grant program, which funded the clinics for 2 years, during which time they implemented at least three evidence-based provider and client interventions, such as patient navigation or electronic medical record enhancements. The clinics reported breast cancer screening rates on a routine basis throughout the 2-year period, beginning August 2018.

Breast cancer screening rate was defined as the percentage of women aged 50-74 years who had a screening mammogram within the past 27 months, out of a total pool of women who had a medical visit within the past year. For 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, 142,207; 142,003; and 150,630 women had a medical visit. Screening rates were compared across years in either June or July. Findings were further characterized by demographic characteristics, urban/rural status, and clinic region.

From 2018 to 2019 breast cancer screening rates rose 18%, from 45.8% to 53.9%. This increase was followed by an 8% decline during the 2019-2020 period, from 53.9% to 49.6%.

The investigators estimated the number of missed mammograms and breast cancer diagnoses for two comparative, hypothetical scenarios: first, if the rising trend from 2018 to 2019 had continued through 2020, and second, if the rate had plateaued at 53.9%.

The rising trend model suggested that 47,517 fewer mammograms than normal were conducted during 2019-2020, resulting in 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses, of which 166 were invasive and 76 were ductal carcinoma in situ. The plateau model suggested that 6,477 fewer mammograms were conducted, leading to 33 missed diagnoses.

Compared with the 8% decline in screening overall, the rate among Black patients dropped 12%, while rates at clinics with a lower proportion of uninsured patients dropped an average of 15%. In contrast, clinics in the South did not have a significant reduction in screening, “possibly reflecting lower baseline rates or impact of stay-at-home orders,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Fedewa and colleagues also noted that their findings were less dramatic than those reported by Mast and Munoz del Rio. They suggested that the CHANGE program may have softened the blow dealt by the pandemic.

“The CHANGE program–funded interventions – that were established before and continued through 2020 – may have mitigated the pandemic’s effects on breast cancer screening services among the 32 CHCs that were studied,” they wrote. “Further investigation of breast cancer screening rates among additional CHCs will further inform where targeted interventions (e.g., client reminders, education on return to screening) are most needed.”

According to Madeline Sutton, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, “Progress seen with the CHANGE program should be duplicated in other clinical venues based on improvements seen in numbers of mammograms and breast cancers detected.”

Still, Dr. Sutton noted that the racial/ethnic disparities remain cause for concern.

“This study has implications for persons served at CHCs, especially if breast cancer racial/ethnic disparities are unintentionally widened during this pandemic,” Dr. Sutton said in a written comment. “Policy-level changes that decrease BCSR [breast cancer screen rate] gaps for women are warranted.”

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, a medical oncology fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that the effects of the pandemic may have been even more pronounced among medically underserved patients in whom interventions to increase screening were not being conducted, as they were through the CHANGE program.

“One must wonder to what degree these interventions reduced the decline in screening mammography rates observed during the pandemic and to what degree could disparities in screening be magnified in community health centers with less resources,” Dr. Velázquez said in a written comment. “Therefore, understanding barriers to breast cancer screening among our specific health care systems is key to guide resource allocation and the development of evidence-based multilevel interventions that can address these barriers, and ultimately increase screening rates.”

Dr. Velázquez also noted that the study by Dr. Fedewa and colleagues may have missed drops in screening among vulnerable populations that occurred later in the pandemic and in geographic hotspots. In a recent JAMA Network Open study, Dr. Velázquez reported a 41% drop in breast cancer screening at a safety-net hospital in San Francisco during the first stay-at-home order, which lasted from Feb. 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020.

The Breast Health Equity CHANGE grant was funded by the National Football League in partnership with the American Cancer Society. The investigators reported employment by the American Cancer Society. Dr. Wehling and Dr. Wysocki disclosed grants from Pfizer unrelated to this research. Dr. Sutton and Dr. Velázquez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.