Ob.Gyn. News

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The contraceptive needs of women who have had in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies are real but are being overlooked, according to study data presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) Virtual World Congress 2021.

The interview-based study found that women report not being routinely informed about the chance of spontaneous pregnancy after IVF. “There is scope to follow-up with women after IVF … but information about the chances of spontaneous births and need for contraception isn’t given,” said lead researcher Annette Thwaites, MD, an academic clinical fellow and a senior registrar in Community Sexual and Reproductive Health at Kings College Hospital, London.

“Fertility services, maternity services, and community services could all do more to give women information on contraception postnatally,” Dr. Thwaites said.

“Even if a woman has had IVF previously, a woman shouldn’t lose the right to plan the rest of her family,” she added. “We need to stop shielding these women from the information they really do need.”

Dr. Thwaites first came across the issue around contraception after IVF pregnancy while talking to new mothers in a postnatal ward for another study. Ward staff told her not to enter the rooms with women who had had IVF births, with the implication that these women would not need or want contraception.

With this in mind, Dr. Thwaites and colleagues aimed to better understand the contraceptive needs of women after successful IVF pregnancy to improve service delivery and prevent unplanned and rapid-repeat pregnancies after IVF.

The researchers interviewed 21 women who had spontaneous pregnancies after successful IVF. Participants were aged 35-50 years, the majority were White, British, professional, married for at least 10 years, and living in nuclear families.

Of the spontaneous post-IVF pregnancies in these women, outcomes included single (11) and multiple live births (1 twin), miscarriage (1), ectopic (1) termination of pregnancy (1), and three ongoing pregnancies.  

After IVF pregnancy, most women said that they used no contraception or ineffective contraception and had never had a conversation around contraception after IVF.

The women also reported that spontaneous pregnancy was shocking and not universally welcomed, and interpregnancy intervals were often short.

In addition, comments by these women suggested certain aspects of the IVF experience reinforced their perceptions of subfertility. One is quoted as saying, “It seemed to be this big failure if you were having IVF.” Another said, “It’s bad enough that I’m having to conceive my baby like this.”
 

An unmet need

In her 30 years of practice, Melanie Davies, MD, has seen many women who experience natural pregnancy after IVF. She agrees it is important to address these women’s contraceptive needs but stresses that it needs to be approached carefully.

“It can stir up sensitivities to discuss this issue after having an IVF pregnancy,” said Dr. Davies, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at University College London Hospitals, London. “I think many women genuinely think that contraception after IVF just doesn’t apply, but lots of women do have natural pregnancies after IVF. I think women do need this information, but we need to be aware of the sensitivities around this issue, so the way we deliver it is crucial.”

Gwenda Burns, chief executive of the National Patient Charity Fertility Network UK, which supports people before, during, and after fertility treatment, agrees that the process leading up to a successful IVF birth can have lasting effects.

“Fertility struggles and going through fertility treatment can put an enormous strain on both physical and mental health and can have a long-lasting impact,” Ms. Burns said when asked to comment on the new study.

“It is vital that patients receive the right support, guidance, and advice following treatment, including when natural conception may still be possible,” Ms. Burns continued.
 

Growing population

Given the increasing use of IVF in recent years, Dr. Thwaites said the importance of understanding and meeting the contraceptive needs of women post-IVF is increasingly important. Also, people are turning to it earlier and for other reasons, such as women in same sex relationships, single women, pre-implantation genetic testing, and surrogates.

“During the recruitment process for the current study, I came across women who said since their IVF pregnancies they had no idea what they should do about contraception,” Dr. Thwaites said.

But she empathizes with health care professionals too. “I genuinely feel that health care professionals just don’t know how to advise women in this setting, so they avoid the topic of contraception altogether with these women. They are concerned about making women feel awkward or upsetting them. In my experience, there is very little said about IVF and contraception in the same breath.”
 

Women believe subfertility always persists after IVF

Among participants in the study, the causes of the women’s subfertility were wide-ranging and included tubal, anovulatory, male factor, joint, and unexplained, the latter of which affects 25% of couples with fertility issues. In the cohort, women had taken up to 9 years to conceive their first child and one had a donor egg conception.

After IVF, the chance of pregnancy will depend on the reason for the couple’s subfertility. “Given that a huge number of patients these days have unexplained subfertility. This is when there is no absolute cause of infertility identified, and it might not prevent a pregnancy but slows it down,” Dr. Davies said in an interview. “Such couples still have a chance of natural pregnancy.”

Polycystic ovary syndrome as a cause of subfertility is often associated with improvement in fertility after IVF, Dr. Davies noted. “This can improve after a spontaneous pregnancy or after IVF, even if the IVF is not a success, and this is possibly due to needling the ovary.”

Dr. Thwaites added that challenging women’s perceptions of their subfertility is critical if headway is to be made on this topic. Many women have persistent views concerning their subfertility after successful IVF, which may be rooted in previous failed treatment; need for repeat cycles or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); low numbers of eggs collected; poor quality embryos; and pregnancy complications, to note some of the most common reasons.

“So many [women] feel that they are very lucky to have had a pregnancy because their journey has been difficult. They might have had a successful pregnancy, but they still hold a sense of personal failure,” said Dr. Thwaites. “Even after spontaneous pregnancy some women said it was a miracle or freak event. [Yet two of these] women had two spontaneous pregnancies.”

Remarkably, even after subsequent spontaneous pregnancy, use of contraception and the most effective methods remained low among participants.

As well as fixed beliefs concerning their subfertility, other barriers to contraception use included a lack of knowledge of likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy; lack of contraceptive experience; and inherent incentives towards shorter interpregnancy intervals (e.g., the convenience and privacy of undergoing further IVF while still on maternity leave and availability of frozen embryos).

Looking ahead, Dr. Thwaites says there is a clear need to link and/or expand the maternity services dataset to uncover the true rates of post-IVF spontaneous pregnancy.

Dr. Thwaites and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Frequency or timing of unprotected intercourse within 14 days before IUD placement had no impact on pregnancy if a preplacement pregnancy test was negative, based on data from 655 women who received IUDs.

Many women present for emergency contraception with a history of unprotected intercourse, often beyond the 5-day guidelines for emergency contraception recommended by the World Health Organization, wrote Abena BakenRa, MD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. “As such, we lack data on situations in which multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse occurred in the same menstrual cycle of use, especially episodes occurring more than 5 days before emergency contraception use,” the researchers said.

To determine pregnancy risk during a longer period before IUD placement, the researchers reviewed secondary data from a randomized trial of 655 women who received the copper T380A IUD or levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system for emergency contraception. The women were aged 18-35 years and were enrolled at one of six family planning clinics in Utah between August 2016 and December 2019.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers assessed pregnancies at 1 month after IUD placement. All of the women had a confirmed negative urine pregnancy test result immediately before IUD placement.

Overall, 286 women (43.7%) reported multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse, with a median of three episodes. A total of 95 women (14.4%) reported at least one unprotected intercourse episode at 6 days or more prior to IUD placement. No pregnancies were reported among women in either of these categories (0.0% for both). Pregnancy risk was 0.2% among those who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days of IUD placement.

No pregnancies occurred in those who reported additional episodes of unprotected intercourse at 6-7 days, 6-10 days, or 6-14 days before IUD placement (0% for all).

In both the copper IUD and levonorgestrel groups, 68% and 74%, respectively, of the women reported that all fertile-window unprotected intercourse events occurred in the 5 days prior to IUD placement.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of power for analysis of certain categories of assessment, such as pregnancy rates by timing or frequency, the inclusion of patients only from the state of Utah, and the potential underreporting of unprotected intercourse, the researchers noted. However, the findings were strengthened by the relatively large sample size, and by data on unprotected intercourse before IUD placement in a randomized, controlled trial that included two types of IUDs, they said.

“For these situations with multiple unprotected intercourse episodes and extended time between unprotected intercourse and emergency contraception request, potential users should be informed of the evidence of IUD emergency contraception efficacy, compared with the current state of uncertain data for oral emergency contraception methods,” the researchers said.

“Given the multitude of barriers that may impede timely presentation to care (insurance and cost concerns, difficulty finding a capable health care professional, or sexual assault trauma), these data are critical to patient-centered family planning care,” they concluded.

Data support IUD placement in practice

“Understanding potential barriers to placement of long-acting reversible contraception such as IUDs is essential to expanding access to contraception,” Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial that compared copper versus levonorgestrel IUD placement for emergency contraception. Investigators were able to evaluate frequency and timing of unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement and prospectively collect data assessing pregnancy risk 1 month after IUD placement,” she said.

The study findings suggest that the risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse within 14 days of IUD placement is low overall, and that this risk does not appear to increase with multiple episodes of unprotected intercourse during this time period, Dr. Krishna said. “In general, insertion of an IUD may occur at any time during the menstrual cycle as long as pregnancy may be reasonably excluded and clinicians are encouraged to initiate and place long-acting reversible contraceptives in a single visit, if possible,” she noted. However, “there is a paucity of data on risk of pregnancy when assessing efficacy of IUDs as emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to IUD placement,” she added.

The study results also suggest that pregnancy risk is similar between women who reported unprotected intercourse within 5 days prior to IUD placement and those who reported unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to IUD placement, said Dr. Krishna. “These findings are clinically significant, as they add to our understanding of risk of pregnancy with unprotected intercourse up to 14 days prior to placement of an IUD,” she emphasized.

In practice, the study results “will help clinicians counsel patients on risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception,” said Dr. Krishna. “More studies evaluating risk of pregnancy after IUD placement for emergency contraception with episodes of unprotected intercourse more than 5 days prior to placement are needed to further assess the potential to expand the time frame for IUD use as emergency contraception,” she said. “Reducing barriers to IUD access, especially in setting of emergency contraception, is essential to lowering unintended pregnancy rates in the United States.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, as well as the University of Utah Population Health Research Foundation, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Several coauthors disclosed grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of Research on Women’s Health of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers, as well as Dr. Krishna, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

A neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong side of his patient’s spine claims he can’t be sued because of a federal law that protects health care professionals during a public health emergency, according to a report by KSDK, an NBC-affiliated television station in St. Louis.

Natalie Avilez, who lives in Missouri with her husband and five children, had been suffering from intense back pain. At some point in the recent past (the story doesn’t identify precisely when), she was referred to Fangxiang Chen, MD, a neurosurgeon affiliated with Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital South, in St. Louis. Ms. Avilez reportedly claims that Dr. Chen told her that an “easy” surgery – a hemilaminectomy – could relieve her back pain.

Something went wrong during the procedure, however. Dr. Chen ended up operating on the left side of Avilez’s spine instead of the right side, where he had initially diagnosed disk-related pressure. Dr. Chen realized his mistake while his patient was under anesthesia but couldn’t remedy it.

As the patient awakened, Dr. Chen asked her to authorize an immediate right-side surgery, but, as Ms. Avilez told the TV station, her “charge nurse would not let him get authorization because I wasn’t fully awake.” In the recovery room afterward, Dr. Chen explained what had happened to his patient, who permitted him to redo the surgery the following day.

But the redo didn’t remedy Ms. Avilez’s pain; in fact, the second surgery made things worse. “I’m always in constant pain,” she said. “I kind of feel like I would have been better off not even doing it at all.”

In January of this year, Ms. Avilez filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Chen and Mercy. But the neurosurgeon made a surprising claim: He said he couldn’t be sued for the wrong-site surgery because he was protected for any “alleged acts or omissions” under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Initially passed in 2005, PREP was intended to shield doctors and other licensed health care professionals from liability during a public health emergency except in cases of willful misconduct. On March 17, 2020, then–Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act “for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.”

But could this declaration – which has since been amended multiple times – shield a physician from a claim of wrong-site surgery?

Ms. Avilez’s attorney, Morgan Murphy, doesn’t think so. “Obviously, we are not claiming that COVID had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Chen operated on the incorrect side of Natalie’s spine. It is a fairly straightforward situation. A doctor should never perform the incorrect surgery, period.”

Other observers are less certain that the Chen defense won’t hold. It’s true the PREP Act doesn’t protect doctors against claims of willful or intentional misconduct, says Deidre Gilbert, who leads a national medical malpractice patient-advocacy group. But such claims are, she quickly adds, very difficult to prove, never more so than during a pandemic.

Several states, including Missouri, have passed or are considering additional measures to protect health care professionals against the expected wave of COVID-related claims. (One estimate places the number of those claims at almost 6,000 as of February 2021.) “We want to make sure that there is a heightened standard for holding somebody liable in ... COVID transmission cases,” said the sponsor of the proposed Show-Me State legislation.

As for Ms. Avilez, she feels lucky that she’s not even worse off than she is now. She worries, though, about other patients who are less fortunate and who are told that the pandemic protects their health care professionals from liability. “That’s just not fair,” she says.
 

Hidden beliefs about people of color raise liability risks

Clinicians’ “implicit bias” can exacerbate medical disparities and also malpractice claims, a story in the Dayton Daily News reports.

The story’s authors cite La Fleur Small, PhD, a medical sociologist at Wayne State University, in Detroit, who sees “implicit bias” as a set of “unconscious associations and judgments” that affect social behavior, causing people to act in ways that are often contrary to their perceived value system. In the medical profession, such thinking can have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

Implicit bias can erode the physician-patient relationship, which in turn can make a malpractice suit more likely should an adverse event occur. Studies reported in recent years in the AMA Journal of Ethics, for instance, found that poor communication was a factor in almost three-quarters of closed claims. Other studies have revealed that, of patients seeking legal advice following a medical mishap, more than half cited a poor doctor-patient relationship as a contributing factor in their decision.

To remedy things, it would be helpful to boost the number of doctors of color, at least to the point that it more closely reflects the percentage in the general population, say experts. Currently, although Black and Hispanic persons constitute 13.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the overall U.S. population, they make up only 5.0% and 5.8% of active physicians. (As of 2018, 56.2% of all physicians were White and 17.2% were Asian, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.)
 

Father of impaired baby seeks mega damages

An Oregon man whose son sustained permanent neurologic injuries during childbirth has sued the hospital where the 2017 delivery took place, as reported in The Astorian.

In the suit on behalf of his son, Wesley Humphries claims that Columbia Memorial Hospital in Astoria, Oregon, failed to monitor the baby’s heart rate and other aspects of the labor and delivery. As a consequence, the baby needed to be transferred to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland, approximately 100 miles away, for emergency treatment. Doctors there diagnosed the child as having hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which his lawyers say resulted in cerebral palsy, among other neurologic conditions.

Because of his son’s permanent impairment, Mr. Humphries is seeking significant damages: more than $45 million in medical, custodial, and life-care expenses and $65 million in noneconomic damages. Should his claim prove successful, the payout would mark one of the largest awards – if not the largest award – in Oregon State history. The hospital has declined to comment.

At press time, a trial date hadn’t been set.

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

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.
 

Raising sexual health issues

“The clinician has to initiate the discussion and make it part of the routine examination,” said Dr. Clayton, also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. She indicated that unresolved sexual issues are a common and important but treatable problem, whether the underlying issue has a medical or psychological origin.

Yet, language is critical. Many physicians might have no difficulty discussing sexual problems, but patients often do. Dr. Clayton recommended developing strategies that might it easy if not seamless to elicit information about sexual health in the context of inquiring about other clinical issues.

“Use bridging statements,” Dr. Clayton suggested.

Bridging statements allow an easy transition into a discussion of sexual function from another clinical issue, Dr. Clayton said. As examples, she suggested moving to questions about sex from inquiries about conditions, such as diabetes, or medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to have an impact on sexual dysfunction.

Avoid yes-no questions.

To prompt a dialogue, Dr. Clayton advised against using yes-no questions that allow the patient to quickly dismiss the topic with a negative response. She tries to frame a question that requires a complete thought. In an inquiry addressed to a patient with diabetes, for example, she might first inform the patient that sexual issues are common with this disorder and then ask what types of sexual issues the patient is experiencing.

Once the topic is raised, a checklist approach is appropriate. Patients might be more or less willing to talk any one of the range of issues that influence sexual health, ranging from issues of desire and arousal to discomfort or pain. The door should be opened to a discussion of specific sexual organ function, such as ability to achieve an erection or adequate lubrication.

“Do not assume the patient is heterosexual,” Dr. Clayton cautioned.

It is reasonable and appropriate to bring up sexual health during the intake history. A discussion of sexual health can be initiated by simply posing the question: “Are you sexually active?” Importantly, Dr. Clayton strongly recommended a follow-up question when adults reply that they are not sexually active.

“If a patient is not sexually active, you should ask why,” Dr. Clayton said. The answer might involve a treatable condition.

In the ELIXIR study, which evaluated sexual function in patients with depression, more than twice as many patients reported impairments when asked by the physician than who volunteered this information spontaneously, according to Dr. Clayton, citing a study that found sexual issues in more than 70% of the 4,557 participants.

Prioritize choice of language.

Once sexual impairments are uncovered, clinicians will need to determine how to intervene, but Dr. Clayton recommended using clear and frank language to define the problem even if the language is tailored to the patient’s comfort level. Patients should be encouraged to recognize that there are solutions for most problems, but clinicians should recognize and respect cultural issues in directing patients toward solutions.

Dr. Clayton is not alone in recommending that patients be asked routinely about sexual health. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of family and community medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, has also advocated for a proactive approach.

“Patients deserve whole-patient care that includes sexual health,” said Dr. Savoy, who was coauthor of a recent article that also outlined techniques for eliciting a sexual history.

She suggested that the need to inquire should not be considered age specific.

“Asking patients about their sexual history and concerns is a critical part of routine primary care across the lifespan,” she said.

“We also need to intentionally create a safe environment where it is as normal to talk about sexual questions or concerns as it is about how to care for a cold or manage a backache,” she added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same company. Dr. Clayton disclosed financial relationships with Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG, Astellas, Fabre-Kramer, Janssen, Ovoca Bio, PureTech Health, Relmada, S1 Biopharma, Safe Therapeutics, Takeda, and WCG MedAd-vante-Prophase. Dr. Savoy reported no conflicts of interest.

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.
 

Raising sexual health issues

“The clinician has to initiate the discussion and make it part of the routine examination,” said Dr. Clayton, also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. She indicated that unresolved sexual issues are a common and important but treatable problem, whether the underlying issue has a medical or psychological origin.

Yet, language is critical. Many physicians might have no difficulty discussing sexual problems, but patients often do. Dr. Clayton recommended developing strategies that might it easy if not seamless to elicit information about sexual health in the context of inquiring about other clinical issues.

“Use bridging statements,” Dr. Clayton suggested.

Bridging statements allow an easy transition into a discussion of sexual function from another clinical issue, Dr. Clayton said. As examples, she suggested moving to questions about sex from inquiries about conditions, such as diabetes, or medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to have an impact on sexual dysfunction.

Avoid yes-no questions.

To prompt a dialogue, Dr. Clayton advised against using yes-no questions that allow the patient to quickly dismiss the topic with a negative response. She tries to frame a question that requires a complete thought. In an inquiry addressed to a patient with diabetes, for example, she might first inform the patient that sexual issues are common with this disorder and then ask what types of sexual issues the patient is experiencing.

Once the topic is raised, a checklist approach is appropriate. Patients might be more or less willing to talk any one of the range of issues that influence sexual health, ranging from issues of desire and arousal to discomfort or pain. The door should be opened to a discussion of specific sexual organ function, such as ability to achieve an erection or adequate lubrication.

“Do not assume the patient is heterosexual,” Dr. Clayton cautioned.

It is reasonable and appropriate to bring up sexual health during the intake history. A discussion of sexual health can be initiated by simply posing the question: “Are you sexually active?” Importantly, Dr. Clayton strongly recommended a follow-up question when adults reply that they are not sexually active.

“If a patient is not sexually active, you should ask why,” Dr. Clayton said. The answer might involve a treatable condition.

In the ELIXIR study, which evaluated sexual function in patients with depression, more than twice as many patients reported impairments when asked by the physician than who volunteered this information spontaneously, according to Dr. Clayton, citing a study that found sexual issues in more than 70% of the 4,557 participants.

Prioritize choice of language.

Once sexual impairments are uncovered, clinicians will need to determine how to intervene, but Dr. Clayton recommended using clear and frank language to define the problem even if the language is tailored to the patient’s comfort level. Patients should be encouraged to recognize that there are solutions for most problems, but clinicians should recognize and respect cultural issues in directing patients toward solutions.

Dr. Clayton is not alone in recommending that patients be asked routinely about sexual health. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of family and community medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, has also advocated for a proactive approach.

“Patients deserve whole-patient care that includes sexual health,” said Dr. Savoy, who was coauthor of a recent article that also outlined techniques for eliciting a sexual history.

She suggested that the need to inquire should not be considered age specific.

“Asking patients about their sexual history and concerns is a critical part of routine primary care across the lifespan,” she said.

“We also need to intentionally create a safe environment where it is as normal to talk about sexual questions or concerns as it is about how to care for a cold or manage a backache,” she added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same company. Dr. Clayton disclosed financial relationships with Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG, Astellas, Fabre-Kramer, Janssen, Ovoca Bio, PureTech Health, Relmada, S1 Biopharma, Safe Therapeutics, Takeda, and WCG MedAd-vante-Prophase. Dr. Savoy reported no conflicts of interest.

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.