Ob.Gyn. News

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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