Ob.Gyn. News

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who experienced severe complications during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to die at any time after their last pregnancy, including post partum and beyond, based on data from more than 1 million women.

“Current data suggest that up to 88% of maternal deaths are preceded by severe maternal morbidity,” but the long-term risk of mortality and the effect of severe maternal morbidity has not been well studied, wrote U. Vivian Ukah, MPH, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

In a longitudinal cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 1,229,306 pregnant women who delivered in Quebec between 1989 and 2016.

The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality after the last pregnancy, either post partum (within 42 days of delivery) or long term (43 days to 29 years after delivery).

Overall, 2.9% of the study population experienced severe maternal morbidity, with an associated mortality rate of 0.86 per 1,000 person-years versus 0.41 per 1,000 person-years in women without severe maternal morbidity. The median time to death for women with severe maternal mortality was 6.8 years, compared with 151 years for those without severe maternal morbidity.

The death rate at any time after delivery, post partum and beyond, was twice as high among women with severe maternal morbidity. The morbidities most often associated with long-term mortality after 42 days were severe cardiac complications (hazard ratio, 7.00), acute renal failure (HR, 4.35), and cerebrovascular accidents (HR, 4.03).

However, the mortality risk following severe maternal morbidity decreased over time, the researchers noted. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 6.73 times the mortality risk, compared with no morbidity, during the period from 43 days to 11 months, but this difference dropped to 1.91, 1.77, and 1.18 times the risk, compared with no comorbidity, at 1-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-29 years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to prove causality, the use of only in-hospital mortality data, and the potential for missed cases that fell outside the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System definition of severe maternal morbidity, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that identifying severe maternal morbidity may help identify women at risk for postpartum and long-term premature mortality. “Women with severe maternal morbidity may benefit from continued surveillance and preventative interventions to reduce the risk of premature mortality,” they concluded.

Increased morbidity rates drive need for research

“In this retrospective longitudinal cohort study of over 1.2 million women delivering in Quebec between 1989 and 2016, Dr. Ukah and her colleagues demonstrated the association between severe maternal morbidity [SMM] and an accelerated risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period, compared with women who do not experience SMM,” Rachel Humphrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Advent Health in Orlando, said in an interview. “This study is important as there has been a steady increase in SMM in recent years. In the United States, the CDC reports that SMM affected more than 50,000 women in 2014 alone. Across multiple countries the decline in overall health of women giving birth is felt to contribute to SMM. As the rates of preexisting conditions such as maternal obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and advanced age increases, we can assume that SMM will increase as well. This study clearly depicts the association between SMM and maternal death at 43 days to years after the complicated delivery. We can assume that, as SMM increases, so will the risk of mortality beyond the postpartum period for these women who initially survive their serious pregnancy complication.”

Dr. Humphrey said that, in some respects, the study results are to be expected. “It is logical to assume that a patient with a life-threatening issue at delivery such as severe cardiac complications, acute renal failure and cerebrovascular accident would be at higher risk for long-term morbidity and mortality. This study also adds to the large body of evidence linking socioeconomic deprivation with SMM. But there were unexpected findings in this study. I did not expect certain types of SMM to be associated with an increased risk of death years after the event.For example, hysterectomy at delivery carried a hazard ratio of 3.54 for death at 5-9 years after the event. The association between severe hemorrhage and fully adjusted hazard ratio was similarly increased at 2.96 [2.37-3.71].”

 

More screening and prospective studies needed

“Recognizing the association between SMM and accelerated long-term risk of mortality is a first step in determining what interventions might improve health and longevity in women who experience SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “With the absence of prospective studies, it still is logical to assume that close medical follow-up and lifestyle interventions are appropriate in this population. Screening for and actively managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension seems appropriate for these patients.”

As for further research, “I am interested to know through prospective clinical trials if specific health maintenance screens and interventions would have a positive impact on the life expectancy of survivors of SMM,” said Dr. Humphrey. “I applaud this team for providing data up to 27 years after an obstetric complication, and I am interested to see if Dr. Ukah and her team will continue their research to determine if there is a ‘second peak’ in mortality in the survivors of SMM when they are elderly. Finally, I would be interested to see more detailed data from this team on the associations between socioeconomic deprivation and short- and long-term mortality for women in their study. This information may help further fuel the movement toward social changes to maximize the health of the women and families we serve.”

The study was supported by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada and awards to the lead author and others from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé. The researchers and Dr. Humphrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

Among the more than 320 million people in the United States, there was a prevalence estimate of 67.6 million sexually transmitted infections at the time of assessment in 2018, according to the results of an epidemiologic study using multiple data sources, including the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

In addition, almost half of the incident STIs occurred in the 15- to 24-year age bracket, according to a report published online in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Researchers estimated the combined number of prevalent and incident infections of eight STIs in the United States in 2018: chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, syphilis, genital herpes (caused by herpes simplex virus type 2 [HSV-2]), human papillomavirus (HPV), sexually transmitted hepatitis B virus (HBV), and sexually transmitted HIV.

The estimated incidences of these STIs in this update, the first since 2008, were made using more recent data and improved estimation methods to provide updated STI prevalence and incidence estimates for 2018, both overall and by disease. “Having a combined estimate is crucial for policy purposes to illustrate the importance of STIs in the United States,” according to Kristen M. Kreisel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, division of STD prevention, and colleagues.

The number of prevalent and incident infections were obtained by multiplying each STI’s updated per capita estimates by the 2018 full resident population estimates from the American Community Survey.
 

Detailed results

Chlamydia. The prevalence of chlamydia was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. There were an estimated 2.4 million prevalent urogenital chlamydial infections among persons aged 15-39 years in 2018; 1.1 and 1.3 million infections among men and women, respectively. Individuals aged 15-24 years comprised 56.7% and 75.8% of all infections in men and women respectively.

Gonorrhea. The prevalence of gonorrhea was estimated using ordinary differential equation based modeling. The number of prevalent urogenital gonococcal infections in 2018 among 15- to 39-year-olds was 209,000 overall; 50,000 in men and 155,000 in women. Of these, 113,000 (54.1%) occurred in 15- to 24-year-olds.

Trichomoniasis. The prevalence of trichomoniasis was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. The number of prevalent Trichomonas infections among 15- to 59-year-olds was 2.6 million, with 470,000 in men and 2.1 million in women. Persons aged 15-24 years comprised 15.6% of all prevalent infections, according to the authors.

Syphilis. The number of estimated prevalent syphilitic infections (all stages) among 14- to 49-year-old persons in 2018 was 156,000, with infections in men comprising 71.8% of all infections. Infections in both men and women aged 14-24 years accounted for about 25% of all infections, with 36,000 total prevalent syphilitic infections among 14- to 24-year-olds in 2018.

Genital herpes. The prevalence of genital herpes (caused by HSV-2) was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, according to the authors. In persons aged 15-49 years in 2018, there were 18.6 million prevalent HSV-2 infections; 6.4 million among men and 12.2 million among women. Infections in 15- to 24-year-olds comprised 7.1% of all prevalent HSV-2 infections.

HPV. The prevalence of HPV was estimated using 2013-2016 NHANES data, which was assumed to reflect stable prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. Among 15- to 59-year-olds, the estimated number of persons, men, and women infected with one or more disease-associated HPV types in 2018 was 42.5, 23.4, and 19.2 million, respectively, with an estimated 9.0 million (21%) 15- to 24-year-olds infected,

HBV. NHANES 2013-2018 data were used to estimate the prevalence of sexually transmitted chronic HBV infections in 2018, according to the authors. The estimated number of infections among persons aged 15 years and older in 2018 was 103,000 (51,000 men and 52,000 women). There small sample size of individuals aged 15-24 years in the NHANES database made it impossible to obtain an accurate estimate for this group, according to the authors.

HIV. Data from the National HIV Surveillance System were used to estimate the prevalence and incidence of sexually transmitted HIV infections for persons aged 13 years and older in 2018. A total of 984,000 individuals aged 13 years and older were estimated to be living with sexually transmitted HIV at the end of 2018, according to the authors. Nearly 80% were men. In the 13- to 24-year-old age bracket, there were an estimated 45,400 living with sexually transmitted HIV.

Billions in costs

Commenting on the study by the CDC researchers, Raul Romaguera, acting director for CDC’s division of STD prevention, stated in a press release: “There are significant human and financial costs associated with these infections, and we know from other studies that cuts in STI prevention efforts result in higher costs down the road. Preventing STIs could save billions in medical costs, but more importantly, prevention would improve the health and lives of millions of people.”

“About 20% of the total U.S. population had an STI at a given point in 2018, while nearly half of all incident infections occurred in people aged 15-24 years. Focusing STI prevention efforts on the 15- to 24-year-old population may be key to lowering the STI burden in the U.S.,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Among the more than 320 million people in the United States, there was a prevalence estimate of 67.6 million sexually transmitted infections at the time of assessment in 2018, according to the results of an epidemiologic study using multiple data sources, including the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

In addition, almost half of the incident STIs occurred in the 15- to 24-year age bracket, according to a report published online in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Researchers estimated the combined number of prevalent and incident infections of eight STIs in the United States in 2018: chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, syphilis, genital herpes (caused by herpes simplex virus type 2 [HSV-2]), human papillomavirus (HPV), sexually transmitted hepatitis B virus (HBV), and sexually transmitted HIV.

The estimated incidences of these STIs in this update, the first since 2008, were made using more recent data and improved estimation methods to provide updated STI prevalence and incidence estimates for 2018, both overall and by disease. “Having a combined estimate is crucial for policy purposes to illustrate the importance of STIs in the United States,” according to Kristen M. Kreisel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, division of STD prevention, and colleagues.

The number of prevalent and incident infections were obtained by multiplying each STI’s updated per capita estimates by the 2018 full resident population estimates from the American Community Survey.
 

Detailed results

Chlamydia. The prevalence of chlamydia was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. There were an estimated 2.4 million prevalent urogenital chlamydial infections among persons aged 15-39 years in 2018; 1.1 and 1.3 million infections among men and women, respectively. Individuals aged 15-24 years comprised 56.7% and 75.8% of all infections in men and women respectively.

Gonorrhea. The prevalence of gonorrhea was estimated using ordinary differential equation based modeling. The number of prevalent urogenital gonococcal infections in 2018 among 15- to 39-year-olds was 209,000 overall; 50,000 in men and 155,000 in women. Of these, 113,000 (54.1%) occurred in 15- to 24-year-olds.

Trichomoniasis. The prevalence of trichomoniasis was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. The number of prevalent Trichomonas infections among 15- to 59-year-olds was 2.6 million, with 470,000 in men and 2.1 million in women. Persons aged 15-24 years comprised 15.6% of all prevalent infections, according to the authors.

Syphilis. The number of estimated prevalent syphilitic infections (all stages) among 14- to 49-year-old persons in 2018 was 156,000, with infections in men comprising 71.8% of all infections. Infections in both men and women aged 14-24 years accounted for about 25% of all infections, with 36,000 total prevalent syphilitic infections among 14- to 24-year-olds in 2018.

Genital herpes. The prevalence of genital herpes (caused by HSV-2) was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, according to the authors. In persons aged 15-49 years in 2018, there were 18.6 million prevalent HSV-2 infections; 6.4 million among men and 12.2 million among women. Infections in 15- to 24-year-olds comprised 7.1% of all prevalent HSV-2 infections.

HPV. The prevalence of HPV was estimated using 2013-2016 NHANES data, which was assumed to reflect stable prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. Among 15- to 59-year-olds, the estimated number of persons, men, and women infected with one or more disease-associated HPV types in 2018 was 42.5, 23.4, and 19.2 million, respectively, with an estimated 9.0 million (21%) 15- to 24-year-olds infected,

HBV. NHANES 2013-2018 data were used to estimate the prevalence of sexually transmitted chronic HBV infections in 2018, according to the authors. The estimated number of infections among persons aged 15 years and older in 2018 was 103,000 (51,000 men and 52,000 women). There small sample size of individuals aged 15-24 years in the NHANES database made it impossible to obtain an accurate estimate for this group, according to the authors.

HIV. Data from the National HIV Surveillance System were used to estimate the prevalence and incidence of sexually transmitted HIV infections for persons aged 13 years and older in 2018. A total of 984,000 individuals aged 13 years and older were estimated to be living with sexually transmitted HIV at the end of 2018, according to the authors. Nearly 80% were men. In the 13- to 24-year-old age bracket, there were an estimated 45,400 living with sexually transmitted HIV.

Billions in costs

Commenting on the study by the CDC researchers, Raul Romaguera, acting director for CDC’s division of STD prevention, stated in a press release: “There are significant human and financial costs associated with these infections, and we know from other studies that cuts in STI prevention efforts result in higher costs down the road. Preventing STIs could save billions in medical costs, but more importantly, prevention would improve the health and lives of millions of people.”

“About 20% of the total U.S. population had an STI at a given point in 2018, while nearly half of all incident infections occurred in people aged 15-24 years. Focusing STI prevention efforts on the 15- to 24-year-old population may be key to lowering the STI burden in the U.S.,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Among the more than 320 million people in the United States, there was a prevalence estimate of 67.6 million sexually transmitted infections at the time of assessment in 2018, according to the results of an epidemiologic study using multiple data sources, including the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

In addition, almost half of the incident STIs occurred in the 15- to 24-year age bracket, according to a report published online in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Researchers estimated the combined number of prevalent and incident infections of eight STIs in the United States in 2018: chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, syphilis, genital herpes (caused by herpes simplex virus type 2 [HSV-2]), human papillomavirus (HPV), sexually transmitted hepatitis B virus (HBV), and sexually transmitted HIV.

The estimated incidences of these STIs in this update, the first since 2008, were made using more recent data and improved estimation methods to provide updated STI prevalence and incidence estimates for 2018, both overall and by disease. “Having a combined estimate is crucial for policy purposes to illustrate the importance of STIs in the United States,” according to Kristen M. Kreisel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, division of STD prevention, and colleagues.

The number of prevalent and incident infections were obtained by multiplying each STI’s updated per capita estimates by the 2018 full resident population estimates from the American Community Survey.
 

Detailed results

Chlamydia. The prevalence of chlamydia was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. There were an estimated 2.4 million prevalent urogenital chlamydial infections among persons aged 15-39 years in 2018; 1.1 and 1.3 million infections among men and women, respectively. Individuals aged 15-24 years comprised 56.7% and 75.8% of all infections in men and women respectively.

Gonorrhea. The prevalence of gonorrhea was estimated using ordinary differential equation based modeling. The number of prevalent urogenital gonococcal infections in 2018 among 15- to 39-year-olds was 209,000 overall; 50,000 in men and 155,000 in women. Of these, 113,000 (54.1%) occurred in 15- to 24-year-olds.

Trichomoniasis. The prevalence of trichomoniasis was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, which was then used to create a modeled prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. The number of prevalent Trichomonas infections among 15- to 59-year-olds was 2.6 million, with 470,000 in men and 2.1 million in women. Persons aged 15-24 years comprised 15.6% of all prevalent infections, according to the authors.

Syphilis. The number of estimated prevalent syphilitic infections (all stages) among 14- to 49-year-old persons in 2018 was 156,000, with infections in men comprising 71.8% of all infections. Infections in both men and women aged 14-24 years accounted for about 25% of all infections, with 36,000 total prevalent syphilitic infections among 14- to 24-year-olds in 2018.

Genital herpes. The prevalence of genital herpes (caused by HSV-2) was estimated using 2015-2018 NHANES data, according to the authors. In persons aged 15-49 years in 2018, there were 18.6 million prevalent HSV-2 infections; 6.4 million among men and 12.2 million among women. Infections in 15- to 24-year-olds comprised 7.1% of all prevalent HSV-2 infections.

HPV. The prevalence of HPV was estimated using 2013-2016 NHANES data, which was assumed to reflect stable prevalence in 2018, according to the authors. Among 15- to 59-year-olds, the estimated number of persons, men, and women infected with one or more disease-associated HPV types in 2018 was 42.5, 23.4, and 19.2 million, respectively, with an estimated 9.0 million (21%) 15- to 24-year-olds infected,

HBV. NHANES 2013-2018 data were used to estimate the prevalence of sexually transmitted chronic HBV infections in 2018, according to the authors. The estimated number of infections among persons aged 15 years and older in 2018 was 103,000 (51,000 men and 52,000 women). There small sample size of individuals aged 15-24 years in the NHANES database made it impossible to obtain an accurate estimate for this group, according to the authors.

HIV. Data from the National HIV Surveillance System were used to estimate the prevalence and incidence of sexually transmitted HIV infections for persons aged 13 years and older in 2018. A total of 984,000 individuals aged 13 years and older were estimated to be living with sexually transmitted HIV at the end of 2018, according to the authors. Nearly 80% were men. In the 13- to 24-year-old age bracket, there were an estimated 45,400 living with sexually transmitted HIV.

Billions in costs

Commenting on the study by the CDC researchers, Raul Romaguera, acting director for CDC’s division of STD prevention, stated in a press release: “There are significant human and financial costs associated with these infections, and we know from other studies that cuts in STI prevention efforts result in higher costs down the road. Preventing STIs could save billions in medical costs, but more importantly, prevention would improve the health and lives of millions of people.”

“About 20% of the total U.S. population had an STI at a given point in 2018, while nearly half of all incident infections occurred in people aged 15-24 years. Focusing STI prevention efforts on the 15- to 24-year-old population may be key to lowering the STI burden in the U.S.,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Intact removal of an ovarian cyst is a well-established gynecologic surgical principle because ovarian cancer is definitively diagnosed only in retrospect (after ovarian extraction) and intraoperative cyst rupture upstages an otherwise nonmetastatic cancer to stage IC. This lumps cancers that are ruptured during surgical extraction together with those that have spontaneously ruptured or have surface excrescences. The theoretical rationale for this “lumping” is that contact between malignant cells from the ruptured cyst may take hold on peritoneal surfaces resulting in development of metastases. To offset this theoretical risk, it has been recommended that all stage IC ovarian cancer is treated with chemotherapy, whereas low-grade stage IA and IB cancers generally are not. No conscientious surgeon wants their surgical intervention to be the cause of a patient needing toxic chemotherapy. But is the contact between malignant cyst fluid and the peritoneum truly as bad as a spontaneous breach of the surface of the tumor? Or is cyst rupture a confounder for other adverse prognostic features, such as histologic cell type and dense pelvic attachments? If ovarian cyst rupture is an independent risk factor for patients with stage I ovarian cancer, strategies should be employed to avoid this occurrence, and we should understand how to counsel and treat patients in whom this has occurred.

In 2017 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of epithelial ovarian cancer subcategorized stage IC. This group encompasses women with contact between malignant cells and the peritoneum in the absence of other extraovarian disease. The table includes these distinct groupings. Stage IC1 includes patients in whom intraoperative spill occurred. Stage IC2 includes women with preoperative cyst rupture, and or microscopic or macroscopic surface involvement because the data support that these cases carry a poorer prognosis, compared with those with intraoperative rupture (IC1).¹ The final subcategory, IC3, includes women who have washings (obtained at the onset of surgery, prior to manipulation of the tumor) that were positive for malignant cells, denoting preexisting contact between the tumor and peritoneum and a phenotypically more aggressive tumor.

The clinical significance of ovarian cancer capsule rupture has been evaluated in multiple studies with some mixed results.¹ Consistently, it is reported that preoperative rupture, surface or capsular involvement, and preexisting peritoneal circulation of metastatic cells all portend a poorer prognosis; however, it is less clear that iatrogenic surgical rupture has the same deleterious association. In a large retrospective series from Japan, the authors evaluated 15,163 cases of stage I ovarian cancer and identified 7,227 cases of iatrogenic (intraoperative) cyst rupture.² These cases were significantly more likely to occur among clear cell cancers, and were more likely to occur in younger patients. Worse prognosis was associated with cell type (clear cell cancers), but non–clear cell cancers (such as serous, mucinous, and endometrioid) did not have a higher hazard ratio for death when intraoperative rupture occurred. But why would intraoperative cyst rupture result in worse prognosis for only one histologic cell type? The authors hypothesized that perhaps rupture was more likely to occur during extraction of these clear cell tumors because they were associated with dense adhesions from associated endometriosis, and perhaps an adverse biologic phenomenon associated with infiltrative endometriosis is driving the behavior of this cancer.

The Japanese study also looked at the effect of chemotherapy on these same patients’ outcomes. Interestingly, the addition of chemotherapy did not improve survival for the patients with stage IC1 cancers, which was in contrast to the improved survival seen when chemotherapy was given to those with spontaneous rupture or ovarian surface involvement (IC2, IC3). These data support differentiating the subgroups of stage IC cancer in treatment decision-making, and suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy might be avoided for patients with nonclear cell stage IC1 ovarian cancer. While the outcomes are worse for patients with ruptured clear cell cancers, current therapeutic options for clear cell cancers are limited because of their known resistance to traditional agents, and outcomes for women with clear cell cancer can be worse across all stages.

While cyst rupture may not always negatively affect prognosis, the goal of surgery remains an intact removal, which influences decisions regarding surgical approach. Most adnexal masses are removed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS). MIS is associated with benefits of morbidity and cost, and therefore should be considered wherever feasible. However, MIS is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cyst rupture, likely because of the rigid instrumentation used when approaching a curved structure, in addition to the disparity in size of the pathology, compared with the extraction site incision.³ When weighing the benefits and risks of different surgical approaches, it is important to gauge the probability of malignancy. Not all complex ovarian masses associated with elevations in tumor markers are malignant, and certainly most that are associated with normal tumor markers are not. If the preoperative clinical data suggest that the mass is more likely to be malignant (e.g., mostly solid, vascular tumors with very elevated tumor markers), consideration might be made to abandoning a purely minimally invasive approach to a hand-assisted MIS or laparotomy approach. However, it would seem that abandoning an MIS approach to remove every ovarian cyst is unwise given that there is clear patient benefit with MIS and, as discussed above, most cases of iatrogenic malignant cyst rupture are unavoidable even with laparotomy, and do not necessarily independently portend poorer survival or mandate chemotherapy.

Surgeons should be both nuanced and flexible and apply some basic rules of thumb when approaching the diagnostically uncertain adnexal mass. Peritoneal washings should be obtained at the commencement of the case to discriminate those cases of true stage IC3. The peritoneum parallel to the ovarian vessel should be extensively opened to a level above the pelvic brim. In order to do this, the physiological attachments between the sigmoid colon or cecum and the suspensory ligament of the ovary may need to be carefully mobilized. This allows for retroperitoneal identification of the ureter and skeletonization of the ovarian vessels at least 2 cm proximal to their insertion into the ovary and avoidance of contact with the ovary itself (which may have a fragile capsule) or incomplete ovarian resection. If the ovary remains invested close to the sidewall or colonic structures and the appropriate peritoneal and retroperitoneal mobilization has not occurred, the surgeon may unavoidably rupture the ovarian cyst as they try to “hug” the ovary with their bites of tissue in an attempt to avoid visceral injury. There is little role for an ovarian cystectomy in a postmenopausal woman undergoing surgery for a complex adnexal mass, particularly if she has elevated tumor markers, because the process of performing ovarian cystectomy commonly invokes cyst rupture or fragmentation. Ovarian cystectomy should be reserved for premenopausal women with adnexal masses at low suspicion for malignancy. If the adnexa appears densely adherent to adjacent structures – for example, associated with infiltrative endometriosis – consideration for laparotomy or a hand-assisted approach may be necessary; in such cases, even open surgery can result in cyst rupture, and the morbidity of conversion to laparotomy should be weighed for individual cases.

Finally, retrieval of the ovarian specimen should occur intact without morcellation. There should be no uncontained morcellation of adnexal structures during retrieval of even normal-appearing ovaries. The preferred retrieval method is to place the adnexa in an appropriately sized retrieval bag, after which contained morcellation or drainage can occur to facilitate removal through a laparoscopic incision. Contained morcellation is very difficult for large solid masses through a laparoscopic port site; in these cases, extension of the incision may be necessary.

While operative spill of an ovarian cancer does upstage nonmetastatic ovarian cancer, it is unclear that, in most cases, this is independently associated with worse prognosis, and chemotherapy may not always be of added value. However, best surgical practice should always include strategies to minimize the chance of rupture when approaching adnexal masses, particularly those at highest likelihood of malignancy.

 

References

1. Kim HS et al. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar 39(3):279-89.

2. Matsuo K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1017-26.

3. Matsuo K et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1110-3.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Intact removal of an ovarian cyst is a well-established gynecologic surgical principle because ovarian cancer is definitively diagnosed only in retrospect (after ovarian extraction) and intraoperative cyst rupture upstages an otherwise nonmetastatic cancer to stage IC. This lumps cancers that are ruptured during surgical extraction together with those that have spontaneously ruptured or have surface excrescences. The theoretical rationale for this “lumping” is that contact between malignant cells from the ruptured cyst may take hold on peritoneal surfaces resulting in development of metastases. To offset this theoretical risk, it has been recommended that all stage IC ovarian cancer is treated with chemotherapy, whereas low-grade stage IA and IB cancers generally are not. No conscientious surgeon wants their surgical intervention to be the cause of a patient needing toxic chemotherapy. But is the contact between malignant cyst fluid and the peritoneum truly as bad as a spontaneous breach of the surface of the tumor? Or is cyst rupture a confounder for other adverse prognostic features, such as histologic cell type and dense pelvic attachments? If ovarian cyst rupture is an independent risk factor for patients with stage I ovarian cancer, strategies should be employed to avoid this occurrence, and we should understand how to counsel and treat patients in whom this has occurred.

In 2017 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of epithelial ovarian cancer subcategorized stage IC. This group encompasses women with contact between malignant cells and the peritoneum in the absence of other extraovarian disease. The table includes these distinct groupings. Stage IC1 includes patients in whom intraoperative spill occurred. Stage IC2 includes women with preoperative cyst rupture, and or microscopic or macroscopic surface involvement because the data support that these cases carry a poorer prognosis, compared with those with intraoperative rupture (IC1).¹ The final subcategory, IC3, includes women who have washings (obtained at the onset of surgery, prior to manipulation of the tumor) that were positive for malignant cells, denoting preexisting contact between the tumor and peritoneum and a phenotypically more aggressive tumor.

The clinical significance of ovarian cancer capsule rupture has been evaluated in multiple studies with some mixed results.¹ Consistently, it is reported that preoperative rupture, surface or capsular involvement, and preexisting peritoneal circulation of metastatic cells all portend a poorer prognosis; however, it is less clear that iatrogenic surgical rupture has the same deleterious association. In a large retrospective series from Japan, the authors evaluated 15,163 cases of stage I ovarian cancer and identified 7,227 cases of iatrogenic (intraoperative) cyst rupture.² These cases were significantly more likely to occur among clear cell cancers, and were more likely to occur in younger patients. Worse prognosis was associated with cell type (clear cell cancers), but non–clear cell cancers (such as serous, mucinous, and endometrioid) did not have a higher hazard ratio for death when intraoperative rupture occurred. But why would intraoperative cyst rupture result in worse prognosis for only one histologic cell type? The authors hypothesized that perhaps rupture was more likely to occur during extraction of these clear cell tumors because they were associated with dense adhesions from associated endometriosis, and perhaps an adverse biologic phenomenon associated with infiltrative endometriosis is driving the behavior of this cancer.

The Japanese study also looked at the effect of chemotherapy on these same patients’ outcomes. Interestingly, the addition of chemotherapy did not improve survival for the patients with stage IC1 cancers, which was in contrast to the improved survival seen when chemotherapy was given to those with spontaneous rupture or ovarian surface involvement (IC2, IC3). These data support differentiating the subgroups of stage IC cancer in treatment decision-making, and suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy might be avoided for patients with nonclear cell stage IC1 ovarian cancer. While the outcomes are worse for patients with ruptured clear cell cancers, current therapeutic options for clear cell cancers are limited because of their known resistance to traditional agents, and outcomes for women with clear cell cancer can be worse across all stages.

While cyst rupture may not always negatively affect prognosis, the goal of surgery remains an intact removal, which influences decisions regarding surgical approach. Most adnexal masses are removed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS). MIS is associated with benefits of morbidity and cost, and therefore should be considered wherever feasible. However, MIS is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cyst rupture, likely because of the rigid instrumentation used when approaching a curved structure, in addition to the disparity in size of the pathology, compared with the extraction site incision.³ When weighing the benefits and risks of different surgical approaches, it is important to gauge the probability of malignancy. Not all complex ovarian masses associated with elevations in tumor markers are malignant, and certainly most that are associated with normal tumor markers are not. If the preoperative clinical data suggest that the mass is more likely to be malignant (e.g., mostly solid, vascular tumors with very elevated tumor markers), consideration might be made to abandoning a purely minimally invasive approach to a hand-assisted MIS or laparotomy approach. However, it would seem that abandoning an MIS approach to remove every ovarian cyst is unwise given that there is clear patient benefit with MIS and, as discussed above, most cases of iatrogenic malignant cyst rupture are unavoidable even with laparotomy, and do not necessarily independently portend poorer survival or mandate chemotherapy.

Surgeons should be both nuanced and flexible and apply some basic rules of thumb when approaching the diagnostically uncertain adnexal mass. Peritoneal washings should be obtained at the commencement of the case to discriminate those cases of true stage IC3. The peritoneum parallel to the ovarian vessel should be extensively opened to a level above the pelvic brim. In order to do this, the physiological attachments between the sigmoid colon or cecum and the suspensory ligament of the ovary may need to be carefully mobilized. This allows for retroperitoneal identification of the ureter and skeletonization of the ovarian vessels at least 2 cm proximal to their insertion into the ovary and avoidance of contact with the ovary itself (which may have a fragile capsule) or incomplete ovarian resection. If the ovary remains invested close to the sidewall or colonic structures and the appropriate peritoneal and retroperitoneal mobilization has not occurred, the surgeon may unavoidably rupture the ovarian cyst as they try to “hug” the ovary with their bites of tissue in an attempt to avoid visceral injury. There is little role for an ovarian cystectomy in a postmenopausal woman undergoing surgery for a complex adnexal mass, particularly if she has elevated tumor markers, because the process of performing ovarian cystectomy commonly invokes cyst rupture or fragmentation. Ovarian cystectomy should be reserved for premenopausal women with adnexal masses at low suspicion for malignancy. If the adnexa appears densely adherent to adjacent structures – for example, associated with infiltrative endometriosis – consideration for laparotomy or a hand-assisted approach may be necessary; in such cases, even open surgery can result in cyst rupture, and the morbidity of conversion to laparotomy should be weighed for individual cases.

Finally, retrieval of the ovarian specimen should occur intact without morcellation. There should be no uncontained morcellation of adnexal structures during retrieval of even normal-appearing ovaries. The preferred retrieval method is to place the adnexa in an appropriately sized retrieval bag, after which contained morcellation or drainage can occur to facilitate removal through a laparoscopic incision. Contained morcellation is very difficult for large solid masses through a laparoscopic port site; in these cases, extension of the incision may be necessary.

While operative spill of an ovarian cancer does upstage nonmetastatic ovarian cancer, it is unclear that, in most cases, this is independently associated with worse prognosis, and chemotherapy may not always be of added value. However, best surgical practice should always include strategies to minimize the chance of rupture when approaching adnexal masses, particularly those at highest likelihood of malignancy.

 

References

1. Kim HS et al. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar 39(3):279-89.

2. Matsuo K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1017-26.

3. Matsuo K et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1110-3.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Intact removal of an ovarian cyst is a well-established gynecologic surgical principle because ovarian cancer is definitively diagnosed only in retrospect (after ovarian extraction) and intraoperative cyst rupture upstages an otherwise nonmetastatic cancer to stage IC. This lumps cancers that are ruptured during surgical extraction together with those that have spontaneously ruptured or have surface excrescences. The theoretical rationale for this “lumping” is that contact between malignant cells from the ruptured cyst may take hold on peritoneal surfaces resulting in development of metastases. To offset this theoretical risk, it has been recommended that all stage IC ovarian cancer is treated with chemotherapy, whereas low-grade stage IA and IB cancers generally are not. No conscientious surgeon wants their surgical intervention to be the cause of a patient needing toxic chemotherapy. But is the contact between malignant cyst fluid and the peritoneum truly as bad as a spontaneous breach of the surface of the tumor? Or is cyst rupture a confounder for other adverse prognostic features, such as histologic cell type and dense pelvic attachments? If ovarian cyst rupture is an independent risk factor for patients with stage I ovarian cancer, strategies should be employed to avoid this occurrence, and we should understand how to counsel and treat patients in whom this has occurred.

In 2017 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of epithelial ovarian cancer subcategorized stage IC. This group encompasses women with contact between malignant cells and the peritoneum in the absence of other extraovarian disease. The table includes these distinct groupings. Stage IC1 includes patients in whom intraoperative spill occurred. Stage IC2 includes women with preoperative cyst rupture, and or microscopic or macroscopic surface involvement because the data support that these cases carry a poorer prognosis, compared with those with intraoperative rupture (IC1).¹ The final subcategory, IC3, includes women who have washings (obtained at the onset of surgery, prior to manipulation of the tumor) that were positive for malignant cells, denoting preexisting contact between the tumor and peritoneum and a phenotypically more aggressive tumor.

The clinical significance of ovarian cancer capsule rupture has been evaluated in multiple studies with some mixed results.¹ Consistently, it is reported that preoperative rupture, surface or capsular involvement, and preexisting peritoneal circulation of metastatic cells all portend a poorer prognosis; however, it is less clear that iatrogenic surgical rupture has the same deleterious association. In a large retrospective series from Japan, the authors evaluated 15,163 cases of stage I ovarian cancer and identified 7,227 cases of iatrogenic (intraoperative) cyst rupture.² These cases were significantly more likely to occur among clear cell cancers, and were more likely to occur in younger patients. Worse prognosis was associated with cell type (clear cell cancers), but non–clear cell cancers (such as serous, mucinous, and endometrioid) did not have a higher hazard ratio for death when intraoperative rupture occurred. But why would intraoperative cyst rupture result in worse prognosis for only one histologic cell type? The authors hypothesized that perhaps rupture was more likely to occur during extraction of these clear cell tumors because they were associated with dense adhesions from associated endometriosis, and perhaps an adverse biologic phenomenon associated with infiltrative endometriosis is driving the behavior of this cancer.

The Japanese study also looked at the effect of chemotherapy on these same patients’ outcomes. Interestingly, the addition of chemotherapy did not improve survival for the patients with stage IC1 cancers, which was in contrast to the improved survival seen when chemotherapy was given to those with spontaneous rupture or ovarian surface involvement (IC2, IC3). These data support differentiating the subgroups of stage IC cancer in treatment decision-making, and suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy might be avoided for patients with nonclear cell stage IC1 ovarian cancer. While the outcomes are worse for patients with ruptured clear cell cancers, current therapeutic options for clear cell cancers are limited because of their known resistance to traditional agents, and outcomes for women with clear cell cancer can be worse across all stages.

While cyst rupture may not always negatively affect prognosis, the goal of surgery remains an intact removal, which influences decisions regarding surgical approach. Most adnexal masses are removed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS). MIS is associated with benefits of morbidity and cost, and therefore should be considered wherever feasible. However, MIS is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cyst rupture, likely because of the rigid instrumentation used when approaching a curved structure, in addition to the disparity in size of the pathology, compared with the extraction site incision.³ When weighing the benefits and risks of different surgical approaches, it is important to gauge the probability of malignancy. Not all complex ovarian masses associated with elevations in tumor markers are malignant, and certainly most that are associated with normal tumor markers are not. If the preoperative clinical data suggest that the mass is more likely to be malignant (e.g., mostly solid, vascular tumors with very elevated tumor markers), consideration might be made to abandoning a purely minimally invasive approach to a hand-assisted MIS or laparotomy approach. However, it would seem that abandoning an MIS approach to remove every ovarian cyst is unwise given that there is clear patient benefit with MIS and, as discussed above, most cases of iatrogenic malignant cyst rupture are unavoidable even with laparotomy, and do not necessarily independently portend poorer survival or mandate chemotherapy.

Surgeons should be both nuanced and flexible and apply some basic rules of thumb when approaching the diagnostically uncertain adnexal mass. Peritoneal washings should be obtained at the commencement of the case to discriminate those cases of true stage IC3. The peritoneum parallel to the ovarian vessel should be extensively opened to a level above the pelvic brim. In order to do this, the physiological attachments between the sigmoid colon or cecum and the suspensory ligament of the ovary may need to be carefully mobilized. This allows for retroperitoneal identification of the ureter and skeletonization of the ovarian vessels at least 2 cm proximal to their insertion into the ovary and avoidance of contact with the ovary itself (which may have a fragile capsule) or incomplete ovarian resection. If the ovary remains invested close to the sidewall or colonic structures and the appropriate peritoneal and retroperitoneal mobilization has not occurred, the surgeon may unavoidably rupture the ovarian cyst as they try to “hug” the ovary with their bites of tissue in an attempt to avoid visceral injury. There is little role for an ovarian cystectomy in a postmenopausal woman undergoing surgery for a complex adnexal mass, particularly if she has elevated tumor markers, because the process of performing ovarian cystectomy commonly invokes cyst rupture or fragmentation. Ovarian cystectomy should be reserved for premenopausal women with adnexal masses at low suspicion for malignancy. If the adnexa appears densely adherent to adjacent structures – for example, associated with infiltrative endometriosis – consideration for laparotomy or a hand-assisted approach may be necessary; in such cases, even open surgery can result in cyst rupture, and the morbidity of conversion to laparotomy should be weighed for individual cases.

Finally, retrieval of the ovarian specimen should occur intact without morcellation. There should be no uncontained morcellation of adnexal structures during retrieval of even normal-appearing ovaries. The preferred retrieval method is to place the adnexa in an appropriately sized retrieval bag, after which contained morcellation or drainage can occur to facilitate removal through a laparoscopic incision. Contained morcellation is very difficult for large solid masses through a laparoscopic port site; in these cases, extension of the incision may be necessary.

While operative spill of an ovarian cancer does upstage nonmetastatic ovarian cancer, it is unclear that, in most cases, this is independently associated with worse prognosis, and chemotherapy may not always be of added value. However, best surgical practice should always include strategies to minimize the chance of rupture when approaching adnexal masses, particularly those at highest likelihood of malignancy.

 

References

1. Kim HS et al. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar 39(3):279-89.

2. Matsuo K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1017-26.

3. Matsuo K et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1110-3.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.K.’s B117 variant is circulating in at least 24 states, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 variant surveillance. The CDC projects that the U.K. variant will become the dominant strain in the United States by March.

From any vantage point, the United Kingdom appears to be in the crosshairs of COVID-19: Weeks after a new, highly contagious variant emerged that fueled a surge in cases and fresh lockdowns, the United Kingdom was revealed to have the world’s highest coronavirus death rate.

But the United Kingdom also has a not-so-secret weapon of its own: A genomic sequencing program widely believed to be the most coordinated and advanced any nation has forged. In the vise grip of the virus, the Brits have gleaned key insights into the behavior and consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

But B117 is also notable for what it is missing: In this case, producing a negative result on certain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in the spike protein, or S-gene.

One of the S-gene mutations specific to the variant deletes two amino acids, causing that portion of the PCR test to show up negative. The coincidental finding known as an S-gene target failure has become an integral proxy to help track where and when the variant is spreading in the United Kingdom, where about 5% of samples from COVID-19–infected patients are sequenced, said Sharon Peacock, PhD, executive director and chair of the COVID-19 Genomics U.K. Consortium.

That same tactic could prove valuable to clinicians similarly overwhelmed with cases and deaths but lacking high-level sequencing information on the virus, Dr. Peacock said in an interview. A British report released Friday stated that there is a “realistic possibility” that the variant has a higher death rate than other cases of SARS-CoV-2.

“In this particular variant, a deletion in the genome leads to one part of the diagnostic test failing,” Dr. Peacock explained. “Several targets are positive, but this is negative. In the U.K., this has been used as a surrogate marker.”
 

Targeting an invisible adversary

B117 is not the only variant that produces this result, Dr. Peacock cautioned, “but in screening for it, you can have this in mind.”

“Since the U.K. is sequencing about 5% of the cases they detect, this gives them really important clues about what’s happening there,” said Anderson Brito, PhD, a virologist and postdoctoral researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., where investigators are creating custom PCR tests to detect the B117 variant.

Dr. Brito, who lived in the United Kingdom for 4 years while studying for his doctorate at Imperial College London, said a “major advantage” is the more unified process to collect and sequence samples. Crucial information – including the date and place of collection – comes with each sample, which fuels not only sequencing, but an epidemiologic perspective.

“They’re not in the dark at all,” Dr. Brito said in an interview. “I think no other country in the world knows better which virus lineages are circulating.”

The CDC launched the SPHERES consortium in May 2020 to coordinate the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes across the United States.

But American genomic efforts are “not as centralized,” said Dr. Brito, whose lab detected the first two cases of the U.K. variant in Connecticut on Jan. 6. “We struggle to get samples, because they’re decentralized to a level where there’s little coordination between hospitals and research centers. They’re not as connected as in the U.K. If we just get a sample and it has no date of collection and no origin information, for example, it’s basically useless.”

Global genomic collaborations include GISAID, an international database where researchers share new genomes from various coronaviruses. As of mid-January, the United States had submitted about 68,000 sequences to GISAID, adding about 3,000 new samples every week and expecting even more from commercial labs in coming days, according to the CDC.

“The U.K. is definitely much more on top of looking for variants as they pop up,” said Gigi Gronvall, PhD, an immunologist and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. “The U.S. has now turned that up.”
 

Warning from British scientists to the world

Despite these genomic accomplishments, some British scientists said they have regrets too, wishing they’d known just how rapidly SARS-CoV-2 was actually spreading a year ago, when it hit western Europe.

That information was crucial not only for preventive efforts, but because viruses inevitably mutate faster the more people who are infected, said Igor Rudan, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Global Health Research at University of Edinburgh.

“Italy showed us just how fast it was spreading and how deadly it is for the very old and people with multiple comorbidities,” said Dr. Rudan, who also editor in chief of the Journal of Global Health. “We wish we knew it was spreading so fast, and we wish we knew the threshold of cases we could allow to be infected before the virus would mutate.”

More mutations mean more new strains of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Rudan said in an interview. “We’ve reached that threshold now and will see more of these mutations.”

Despite its current struggles, the United Kingdom is reaching beyond tracking its new variant’s spread and trying to identify new mutations that might change the way the virus behaves.

Three features of any emerging variant are particularly important, Dr. Peacock explained: Is it more transmissible? Is it more lethal? And does it cut the ability of natural- or vaccine-induced immunity to protect people from infection?

“We need to sequence people coming to the hospital who are sicker,” said Dr. Peacock, also a professor of public health and microbiology at the University of Cambridge (England). “Also, if anyone has the infection after they’ve already been sick or had the vaccine, we really want to know what that looks like” genomically.

SARS-CoV-2 has already logged more than 4,000 mutations, Dr. Peacock said. But “knowing that viruses mutate all the time is not sufficient reason not to look. We really want to know if mutations lead to changes in amino acids, and if that can lead to changes in functionality.”

For the moment, however, experts say they’re relieved that the U.K. strain doesn’t seem able to evade COVID-19 vaccines or render them less effective.

“Even though mutations are common, those able to change the viral coding are rare,” Dr. Brito explained. If necessary, vaccines could be tweaked to replace the spike gene sequence “within a matter of weeks. We already do this for flu vaccines. Every year, we have to monitor variants of the virus circulating to develop a vaccine that covers most of them. If we end up having to do it for SARS-CoV-2, I would not be surprised.”

But variant-fueled increases in infections will require more people to be vaccinated before herd immunity can be achieved, Dr. Rudan warned. “If it spreads faster, we’ll need to vaccinate probably 85% of people versus 70% to reach herd immunity.”

One lesson the COVID-19 pandemic has driven home “is to always be on your guard about what happens next,” Dr. Peacock said. Although confident about the genomic efforts in the United Kingdom to date, she and her colleagues feel they’re still reaching for a complete understanding of the evolutionary changes of the virus.

“We’re ahead of the curve right now, but we want to get in front of the curve,” Dr. Peacock said. “It’s essential to get ahead of what might be around the corner because we don’t know how the virus is going to evolve.”

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

The U.K.’s B117 variant is circulating in at least 24 states, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 variant surveillance. The CDC projects that the U.K. variant will become the dominant strain in the United States by March.

From any vantage point, the United Kingdom appears to be in the crosshairs of COVID-19: Weeks after a new, highly contagious variant emerged that fueled a surge in cases and fresh lockdowns, the United Kingdom was revealed to have the world’s highest coronavirus death rate.

But the United Kingdom also has a not-so-secret weapon of its own: A genomic sequencing program widely believed to be the most coordinated and advanced any nation has forged. In the vise grip of the virus, the Brits have gleaned key insights into the behavior and consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

But B117 is also notable for what it is missing: In this case, producing a negative result on certain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in the spike protein, or S-gene.

One of the S-gene mutations specific to the variant deletes two amino acids, causing that portion of the PCR test to show up negative. The coincidental finding known as an S-gene target failure has become an integral proxy to help track where and when the variant is spreading in the United Kingdom, where about 5% of samples from COVID-19–infected patients are sequenced, said Sharon Peacock, PhD, executive director and chair of the COVID-19 Genomics U.K. Consortium.

That same tactic could prove valuable to clinicians similarly overwhelmed with cases and deaths but lacking high-level sequencing information on the virus, Dr. Peacock said in an interview. A British report released Friday stated that there is a “realistic possibility” that the variant has a higher death rate than other cases of SARS-CoV-2.

“In this particular variant, a deletion in the genome leads to one part of the diagnostic test failing,” Dr. Peacock explained. “Several targets are positive, but this is negative. In the U.K., this has been used as a surrogate marker.”
 

Targeting an invisible adversary

B117 is not the only variant that produces this result, Dr. Peacock cautioned, “but in screening for it, you can have this in mind.”

“Since the U.K. is sequencing about 5% of the cases they detect, this gives them really important clues about what’s happening there,” said Anderson Brito, PhD, a virologist and postdoctoral researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., where investigators are creating custom PCR tests to detect the B117 variant.

Dr. Brito, who lived in the United Kingdom for 4 years while studying for his doctorate at Imperial College London, said a “major advantage” is the more unified process to collect and sequence samples. Crucial information – including the date and place of collection – comes with each sample, which fuels not only sequencing, but an epidemiologic perspective.

“They’re not in the dark at all,” Dr. Brito said in an interview. “I think no other country in the world knows better which virus lineages are circulating.”

The CDC launched the SPHERES consortium in May 2020 to coordinate the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes across the United States.

But American genomic efforts are “not as centralized,” said Dr. Brito, whose lab detected the first two cases of the U.K. variant in Connecticut on Jan. 6. “We struggle to get samples, because they’re decentralized to a level where there’s little coordination between hospitals and research centers. They’re not as connected as in the U.K. If we just get a sample and it has no date of collection and no origin information, for example, it’s basically useless.”

Global genomic collaborations include GISAID, an international database where researchers share new genomes from various coronaviruses. As of mid-January, the United States had submitted about 68,000 sequences to GISAID, adding about 3,000 new samples every week and expecting even more from commercial labs in coming days, according to the CDC.

“The U.K. is definitely much more on top of looking for variants as they pop up,” said Gigi Gronvall, PhD, an immunologist and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. “The U.S. has now turned that up.”