Ob.Gyn. News

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

Prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths prior to planned cesarean delivery may reduce blood loss in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder, according to a new systematic review of more than 5,000 individuals.

Placenta accreta spectrum disorder occurs when the endometrial-myometrial interface of the uterus is damaged, wrote Lisanne R. Bonsen, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues. As a result, the placenta fails to detach at the time of birth and can result in life-threatening postpartum hemorrhage, the researchers said.

The greater the depth of placental invasiveness, the more severe the maternal outcomes, the researchers noted. Previous cesarean delivery is the primary risk factor for placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and the incidence has increased along with the increased rates of cesarean delivery on a global level, they explained.

More research is needed on intrapartum strategies to improve maternal outcomes, and prophylactic radiologic intervention to reduce perioperative blood loss has been explored, the researchers wrote. However, placenta accreta spectrum disorder remains relatively rare in most pregnancy settings, and data on the effect of prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding in this high-risk population are limited they said.

In the review published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed data from 50 studies of prophylactic radiologic interventions (48 observational studies and 2 randomized, controlled trials) including 5,962 women.

The primary outcome was perioperative blood loss; secondary outcomes included the number of red blood cells transferred within 24 hours after delivery, maternal mortality, adverse events related to the interventions, and surgical complications.

Blood loss was significantly lower in the intervention groups compared with the control groups for patients who underwent distal balloon occlusion (30 studies), proximal balloon occlusion (14 studies), or uterine artery embolization (5 studies), with mean differences in blood loss of 406 mL, 1,041 mL, and 936 mL, respectively.

Results were similar with lower blood loss for intervention patients compared with controls in subgroup analyses of different types of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and those with placenta accreta spectrum disorder confirmed post partum.

Across the 35 studies that included data on blood transfusions, women who underwent any prophylactic radiologic intervention averaged fewer red blood cell units transferred than women who had no radiologic intervention, with a mean difference of 1.13, 1.90, and 1.86 units for distal prophylactic balloon occlusion, proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and prophylactic uterine artery embolization, respectively.

Data on adverse events related to the interventions were limited, but noted in approximately 2% of patients who underwent distal or proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and 45% of patients who underwent prophylactic uterine artery embolization. One maternal death was reported and attributed to diffuse intravascular coagulation. Three cardiac arrests occurred in control patients across different studies and all were successfully resuscitated.

Most of the studies did not report data on the researchers’ predefined secondary outcomes, including shock, transfer to a higher level of care, coagulopathy, organ dysfunction, and patient-reported outcomes.
 

What Works Best

“Our main analysis reveals differences in outcomes among the three interventions, with proximal balloon occlusion demonstrating the strongest effect,” the researchers wrote. “Our results show a blood loss reduction of 406 mL by distal prophylactic balloon occlusion. An explanation for the differences between the results of prophylactic balloon occlusion–distal and prophylactic balloon occlusion–proximal could be that implementing occlusion at a distal level may be less effective because of bleeding from the collateral circulation,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational design of most of the studies, variation in measurements of blood loss among studies and in inclusion criteria, and insufficient adverse event data to draw conclusions about safety, the researchers noted. More research is needed to examine efficacy and safety of the interventions according to different sensitivities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, they added.

Results Support Judicious Intervention

“Although previous studies showed mixed results, our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic radiologic interventions, particularly balloon occlusion (both distal and proximal), were associated with reduced perioperative blood loss and less red blood cell unit transfusion; this was most pronounced in women with confirmed placenta percreta,” Bonsen said in an interview. However, the heterogeneity across the included studies prevents generalizations about the overall effects of the interventions across different severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, she said.*

Despite these limitations, the overview of the currently available evidence provides insights for clinical decision making, said Bonsen. “Our study highlights that, if we were to be certain of the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorder antepartum, prophylactic radiologic intervention could help reduce peripartum blood loss,” she said.

Risks vs Benefits

“Given the challenges in performing randomized surgical trials in a pregnant patient population with an uncommon disorder, this level of evidence provides important data to assist with clinical decision making in patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorder,” despite the limitations of the observational studies, wrote Jocelyn S. Chapman, MD, and Arianna M. Cassidy, MD, both affiliated with the Multidisciplinary Approach to Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder Service (MAPS) at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of severe maternal morbidity among women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder and previous intervention strategies have involved protocols, surgical techniques, and management strategies, they wrote.

Uterine artery embolization after cesarean delivery also has been associated with reduced hemorrhage and no adverse events, but this procedure was not included in the studies reviewed and is best conducted in a delivery setup not available in many hospital systems, the editorialists noted.

The current study illustrates the value of prophylactic balloon occlusion and placement of vascular sheaths to reduce blood loss and blood transfusion, but the risk of thrombosis and lumbosacral pain must be considered, they said. These risks may be a reasonable trade-off to avoid severe blood loss and ICU care, and to preserve the uterus, Chapman and Cassidy added.

“However, we would urge continued critical appraisal of each placenta accreta spectrum disorder case with a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the available evidence-based strategies most likely to mitigate clinically relevant complications while minimizing the introduction of new ones,” the editorialists concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Chapman and Dr. Cassidy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This story was updated on August 28, 2024.

Prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths prior to planned cesarean delivery may reduce blood loss in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder, according to a new systematic review of more than 5,000 individuals.

Placenta accreta spectrum disorder occurs when the endometrial-myometrial interface of the uterus is damaged, wrote Lisanne R. Bonsen, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues. As a result, the placenta fails to detach at the time of birth and can result in life-threatening postpartum hemorrhage, the researchers said.

The greater the depth of placental invasiveness, the more severe the maternal outcomes, the researchers noted. Previous cesarean delivery is the primary risk factor for placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and the incidence has increased along with the increased rates of cesarean delivery on a global level, they explained.

More research is needed on intrapartum strategies to improve maternal outcomes, and prophylactic radiologic intervention to reduce perioperative blood loss has been explored, the researchers wrote. However, placenta accreta spectrum disorder remains relatively rare in most pregnancy settings, and data on the effect of prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding in this high-risk population are limited they said.

In the review published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed data from 50 studies of prophylactic radiologic interventions (48 observational studies and 2 randomized, controlled trials) including 5,962 women.

The primary outcome was perioperative blood loss; secondary outcomes included the number of red blood cells transferred within 24 hours after delivery, maternal mortality, adverse events related to the interventions, and surgical complications.

Blood loss was significantly lower in the intervention groups compared with the control groups for patients who underwent distal balloon occlusion (30 studies), proximal balloon occlusion (14 studies), or uterine artery embolization (5 studies), with mean differences in blood loss of 406 mL, 1,041 mL, and 936 mL, respectively.

Results were similar with lower blood loss for intervention patients compared with controls in subgroup analyses of different types of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and those with placenta accreta spectrum disorder confirmed post partum.

Across the 35 studies that included data on blood transfusions, women who underwent any prophylactic radiologic intervention averaged fewer red blood cell units transferred than women who had no radiologic intervention, with a mean difference of 1.13, 1.90, and 1.86 units for distal prophylactic balloon occlusion, proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and prophylactic uterine artery embolization, respectively.

Data on adverse events related to the interventions were limited, but noted in approximately 2% of patients who underwent distal or proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and 45% of patients who underwent prophylactic uterine artery embolization. One maternal death was reported and attributed to diffuse intravascular coagulation. Three cardiac arrests occurred in control patients across different studies and all were successfully resuscitated.

Most of the studies did not report data on the researchers’ predefined secondary outcomes, including shock, transfer to a higher level of care, coagulopathy, organ dysfunction, and patient-reported outcomes.
 

What Works Best

“Our main analysis reveals differences in outcomes among the three interventions, with proximal balloon occlusion demonstrating the strongest effect,” the researchers wrote. “Our results show a blood loss reduction of 406 mL by distal prophylactic balloon occlusion. An explanation for the differences between the results of prophylactic balloon occlusion–distal and prophylactic balloon occlusion–proximal could be that implementing occlusion at a distal level may be less effective because of bleeding from the collateral circulation,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational design of most of the studies, variation in measurements of blood loss among studies and in inclusion criteria, and insufficient adverse event data to draw conclusions about safety, the researchers noted. More research is needed to examine efficacy and safety of the interventions according to different sensitivities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, they added.

Results Support Judicious Intervention

“Although previous studies showed mixed results, our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic radiologic interventions, particularly balloon occlusion (both distal and proximal), were associated with reduced perioperative blood loss and less red blood cell unit transfusion; this was most pronounced in women with confirmed placenta percreta,” Bonsen said in an interview. However, the heterogeneity across the included studies prevents generalizations about the overall effects of the interventions across different severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, she said.*

Despite these limitations, the overview of the currently available evidence provides insights for clinical decision making, said Bonsen. “Our study highlights that, if we were to be certain of the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorder antepartum, prophylactic radiologic intervention could help reduce peripartum blood loss,” she said.

Risks vs Benefits

“Given the challenges in performing randomized surgical trials in a pregnant patient population with an uncommon disorder, this level of evidence provides important data to assist with clinical decision making in patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorder,” despite the limitations of the observational studies, wrote Jocelyn S. Chapman, MD, and Arianna M. Cassidy, MD, both affiliated with the Multidisciplinary Approach to Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder Service (MAPS) at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of severe maternal morbidity among women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder and previous intervention strategies have involved protocols, surgical techniques, and management strategies, they wrote.

Uterine artery embolization after cesarean delivery also has been associated with reduced hemorrhage and no adverse events, but this procedure was not included in the studies reviewed and is best conducted in a delivery setup not available in many hospital systems, the editorialists noted.

The current study illustrates the value of prophylactic balloon occlusion and placement of vascular sheaths to reduce blood loss and blood transfusion, but the risk of thrombosis and lumbosacral pain must be considered, they said. These risks may be a reasonable trade-off to avoid severe blood loss and ICU care, and to preserve the uterus, Chapman and Cassidy added.

“However, we would urge continued critical appraisal of each placenta accreta spectrum disorder case with a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the available evidence-based strategies most likely to mitigate clinically relevant complications while minimizing the introduction of new ones,” the editorialists concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Chapman and Dr. Cassidy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This story was updated on August 28, 2024.

Prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths prior to planned cesarean delivery may reduce blood loss in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder, according to a new systematic review of more than 5,000 individuals.

Placenta accreta spectrum disorder occurs when the endometrial-myometrial interface of the uterus is damaged, wrote Lisanne R. Bonsen, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues. As a result, the placenta fails to detach at the time of birth and can result in life-threatening postpartum hemorrhage, the researchers said.

The greater the depth of placental invasiveness, the more severe the maternal outcomes, the researchers noted. Previous cesarean delivery is the primary risk factor for placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and the incidence has increased along with the increased rates of cesarean delivery on a global level, they explained.

More research is needed on intrapartum strategies to improve maternal outcomes, and prophylactic radiologic intervention to reduce perioperative blood loss has been explored, the researchers wrote. However, placenta accreta spectrum disorder remains relatively rare in most pregnancy settings, and data on the effect of prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding in this high-risk population are limited they said.

In the review published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed data from 50 studies of prophylactic radiologic interventions (48 observational studies and 2 randomized, controlled trials) including 5,962 women.

The primary outcome was perioperative blood loss; secondary outcomes included the number of red blood cells transferred within 24 hours after delivery, maternal mortality, adverse events related to the interventions, and surgical complications.

Blood loss was significantly lower in the intervention groups compared with the control groups for patients who underwent distal balloon occlusion (30 studies), proximal balloon occlusion (14 studies), or uterine artery embolization (5 studies), with mean differences in blood loss of 406 mL, 1,041 mL, and 936 mL, respectively.

Results were similar with lower blood loss for intervention patients compared with controls in subgroup analyses of different types of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and those with placenta accreta spectrum disorder confirmed post partum.

Across the 35 studies that included data on blood transfusions, women who underwent any prophylactic radiologic intervention averaged fewer red blood cell units transferred than women who had no radiologic intervention, with a mean difference of 1.13, 1.90, and 1.86 units for distal prophylactic balloon occlusion, proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and prophylactic uterine artery embolization, respectively.

Data on adverse events related to the interventions were limited, but noted in approximately 2% of patients who underwent distal or proximal prophylactic balloon occlusion, and 45% of patients who underwent prophylactic uterine artery embolization. One maternal death was reported and attributed to diffuse intravascular coagulation. Three cardiac arrests occurred in control patients across different studies and all were successfully resuscitated.

Most of the studies did not report data on the researchers’ predefined secondary outcomes, including shock, transfer to a higher level of care, coagulopathy, organ dysfunction, and patient-reported outcomes.
 

What Works Best

“Our main analysis reveals differences in outcomes among the three interventions, with proximal balloon occlusion demonstrating the strongest effect,” the researchers wrote. “Our results show a blood loss reduction of 406 mL by distal prophylactic balloon occlusion. An explanation for the differences between the results of prophylactic balloon occlusion–distal and prophylactic balloon occlusion–proximal could be that implementing occlusion at a distal level may be less effective because of bleeding from the collateral circulation,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the observational design of most of the studies, variation in measurements of blood loss among studies and in inclusion criteria, and insufficient adverse event data to draw conclusions about safety, the researchers noted. More research is needed to examine efficacy and safety of the interventions according to different sensitivities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, they added.

Results Support Judicious Intervention

“Although previous studies showed mixed results, our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic radiologic interventions, particularly balloon occlusion (both distal and proximal), were associated with reduced perioperative blood loss and less red blood cell unit transfusion; this was most pronounced in women with confirmed placenta percreta,” Bonsen said in an interview. However, the heterogeneity across the included studies prevents generalizations about the overall effects of the interventions across different severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, she said.*

Despite these limitations, the overview of the currently available evidence provides insights for clinical decision making, said Bonsen. “Our study highlights that, if we were to be certain of the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorder antepartum, prophylactic radiologic intervention could help reduce peripartum blood loss,” she said.

Risks vs Benefits

“Given the challenges in performing randomized surgical trials in a pregnant patient population with an uncommon disorder, this level of evidence provides important data to assist with clinical decision making in patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorder,” despite the limitations of the observational studies, wrote Jocelyn S. Chapman, MD, and Arianna M. Cassidy, MD, both affiliated with the Multidisciplinary Approach to Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder Service (MAPS) at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of severe maternal morbidity among women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder and previous intervention strategies have involved protocols, surgical techniques, and management strategies, they wrote.

Uterine artery embolization after cesarean delivery also has been associated with reduced hemorrhage and no adverse events, but this procedure was not included in the studies reviewed and is best conducted in a delivery setup not available in many hospital systems, the editorialists noted.

The current study illustrates the value of prophylactic balloon occlusion and placement of vascular sheaths to reduce blood loss and blood transfusion, but the risk of thrombosis and lumbosacral pain must be considered, they said. These risks may be a reasonable trade-off to avoid severe blood loss and ICU care, and to preserve the uterus, Chapman and Cassidy added.

“However, we would urge continued critical appraisal of each placenta accreta spectrum disorder case with a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the available evidence-based strategies most likely to mitigate clinically relevant complications while minimizing the introduction of new ones,” the editorialists concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Chapman and Dr. Cassidy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This story was updated on August 28, 2024.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

After years of debate and disagreement, could an improved, more user-friendly version of iPLEDGE be on the horizon?

iPLEDGE, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–required Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program launched in 2010, aims to manage the risks for the teratogenic acne drug isotretinoin and prevent fetal exposure. But it’s been dogged by issues and controversy, causing difficulties for patients and prescribers.

Late in 2023, there seemed to be a reason for optimism that improvements were coming. On November 30, 2023, the FDA informed isotretinoin manufacturers — known as the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturing Group (IPMG) — that they had 6 months to make five changes to the existing iPLEDGE REMS, addressing the controversies and potentially reducing glitches in the program and minimizing the burden of the program on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies — while maintaining safe use of the drug — and to submit their proposal by May 30, 2024.

The timeline for when an improved program might be in place remains unclear.

An FDA spokesperson, without confirming that the submission was submitted on time, recently said the review timeline once such a submission is received is generally 6 months.
 

‘Radio Silence’

No official FDA announcement has been made about the timeline, nor has information been forthcoming from the IPMG, and the silence has been frustrating for John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. He chairs the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s IPLEDGE Work Group, which works with both the FDA and IPMG.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

He began writing about issues with iPLEDGE about 4 years ago, when he and colleagues suggested, among other changes, simplifying the iPLEDGE contraception requirements in a paper published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri expressed frustration about the lack of information on the status of the iPLEDGE changes. “We’ve been given no timeline [beyond the FDA’s May 30 deadline for the IPMG to respond] of what might happen when. We’ve asked what was submitted. No one will share it with us or tell us anything about it. It’s just radio silence.”

Dr. Barbieri is also frustrated at the lack of response from IPMG. Despite repeated requests to the group to include the dermatologists in the discussions, IPMG has repeatedly declined the help, he said.

IPMG appears to have no dedicated website. No response had been received to an email sent to an address attributed to the group asking if it would share the submission to the FDA.

Currently, isotretinoin, originally marketed as Accutane, is marketed under such brand names as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

Asked for specific information on the proposed changes, an FDA spokesperson said in an August 19 email that “the submission to the FDA from the isotretinoin manufacturers will be a major modification, and the review timeline is generally 6 months. Once approved, the isotretinoin manufacturers will need additional time to implement the changes.”

The spokesperson declined to provide additional information on the status of the IPMG proposal, to share the proposal itself, or to estimate the implementation period.


 

Reason for Hope?

In response to the comment that the review generally takes 6 months, Dr. Barbieri said it doesn’t give him much hope, adding that “any delay of implementing these reforms is a missed opportunity to improve the care of patients with acne.” He is also hopeful that the FDA will invite some public comment during the review period “so that stakeholders can share their feedback about the proposal to help guide FDA decision-making and ensure effective implementation.”
 

From Meeting to Mandate

The FDA order for the changes followed a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee in March 2023 about the program requirements. It included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes, with a goal of reducing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers without compromising patient safety.

The Five Requested Changes

In the November 30 letter, the FDA requested the following from the IPMG:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests be performed in a specially certified lab (such as a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments lab). This would enable the tests to be done in a clinic setting rather than sending patients to a separate lab.
• Allow prescribers the option of letting patients use home pregnancy tests during and after treatment, with steps in place to minimize falsification.
• Remove the waiting period requirement, known as the “19-day lockout,” for patients if they don’t obtain the isotretinoin from the pharmacy within the first 7-day prescription window. Before initiation of isotretinoin, a repeat confirmatory test must be done in a medical setting without any required waiting period.
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement, removing the objective to document the outcome and associated collection of data for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling for those who can’t become pregnant from monthly counseling to counseling at enrollment only. Before each prescription is dispensed, the authorization must verify patient enrollment and prescriber certification. (In December 2021, a new, gender-neutral approach, approved by the FDA, was launched. It places potential patients into two risk categories — those who can become pregnant and those who cannot. Previously, there were three such categories: Females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.)

Perspective on the Requested Changes

Of the requested changes, “really the most important is eliminating the request for monthly counseling for patients who cannot become pregnant,” Dr. Barbieri said. Because of that requirement, all patients need to have monthly visits with a dermatologist to get the medication refills, “and that creates a logistical barrier,” plus reducing time available for dermatologists to care for other patients with other dermatologic issues.

As for missing the 7-day prescription window, Dr. Barbieri said, in his experience, “it’s almost never the patient’s fault; it’s almost always an insurance problem.”

Dr. Barbieri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After years of debate and disagreement, could an improved, more user-friendly version of iPLEDGE be on the horizon?

iPLEDGE, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–required Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program launched in 2010, aims to manage the risks for the teratogenic acne drug isotretinoin and prevent fetal exposure. But it’s been dogged by issues and controversy, causing difficulties for patients and prescribers.

Late in 2023, there seemed to be a reason for optimism that improvements were coming. On November 30, 2023, the FDA informed isotretinoin manufacturers — known as the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturing Group (IPMG) — that they had 6 months to make five changes to the existing iPLEDGE REMS, addressing the controversies and potentially reducing glitches in the program and minimizing the burden of the program on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies — while maintaining safe use of the drug — and to submit their proposal by May 30, 2024.

The timeline for when an improved program might be in place remains unclear.

An FDA spokesperson, without confirming that the submission was submitted on time, recently said the review timeline once such a submission is received is generally 6 months.
 

‘Radio Silence’

No official FDA announcement has been made about the timeline, nor has information been forthcoming from the IPMG, and the silence has been frustrating for John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. He chairs the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s IPLEDGE Work Group, which works with both the FDA and IPMG.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

He began writing about issues with iPLEDGE about 4 years ago, when he and colleagues suggested, among other changes, simplifying the iPLEDGE contraception requirements in a paper published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri expressed frustration about the lack of information on the status of the iPLEDGE changes. “We’ve been given no timeline [beyond the FDA’s May 30 deadline for the IPMG to respond] of what might happen when. We’ve asked what was submitted. No one will share it with us or tell us anything about it. It’s just radio silence.”

Dr. Barbieri is also frustrated at the lack of response from IPMG. Despite repeated requests to the group to include the dermatologists in the discussions, IPMG has repeatedly declined the help, he said.

IPMG appears to have no dedicated website. No response had been received to an email sent to an address attributed to the group asking if it would share the submission to the FDA.

Currently, isotretinoin, originally marketed as Accutane, is marketed under such brand names as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

Asked for specific information on the proposed changes, an FDA spokesperson said in an August 19 email that “the submission to the FDA from the isotretinoin manufacturers will be a major modification, and the review timeline is generally 6 months. Once approved, the isotretinoin manufacturers will need additional time to implement the changes.”

The spokesperson declined to provide additional information on the status of the IPMG proposal, to share the proposal itself, or to estimate the implementation period.


 

Reason for Hope?

In response to the comment that the review generally takes 6 months, Dr. Barbieri said it doesn’t give him much hope, adding that “any delay of implementing these reforms is a missed opportunity to improve the care of patients with acne.” He is also hopeful that the FDA will invite some public comment during the review period “so that stakeholders can share their feedback about the proposal to help guide FDA decision-making and ensure effective implementation.”
 

From Meeting to Mandate

The FDA order for the changes followed a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee in March 2023 about the program requirements. It included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes, with a goal of reducing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers without compromising patient safety.

The Five Requested Changes

In the November 30 letter, the FDA requested the following from the IPMG:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests be performed in a specially certified lab (such as a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments lab). This would enable the tests to be done in a clinic setting rather than sending patients to a separate lab.
• Allow prescribers the option of letting patients use home pregnancy tests during and after treatment, with steps in place to minimize falsification.
• Remove the waiting period requirement, known as the “19-day lockout,” for patients if they don’t obtain the isotretinoin from the pharmacy within the first 7-day prescription window. Before initiation of isotretinoin, a repeat confirmatory test must be done in a medical setting without any required waiting period.
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement, removing the objective to document the outcome and associated collection of data for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling for those who can’t become pregnant from monthly counseling to counseling at enrollment only. Before each prescription is dispensed, the authorization must verify patient enrollment and prescriber certification. (In December 2021, a new, gender-neutral approach, approved by the FDA, was launched. It places potential patients into two risk categories — those who can become pregnant and those who cannot. Previously, there were three such categories: Females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.)

Perspective on the Requested Changes

Of the requested changes, “really the most important is eliminating the request for monthly counseling for patients who cannot become pregnant,” Dr. Barbieri said. Because of that requirement, all patients need to have monthly visits with a dermatologist to get the medication refills, “and that creates a logistical barrier,” plus reducing time available for dermatologists to care for other patients with other dermatologic issues.

As for missing the 7-day prescription window, Dr. Barbieri said, in his experience, “it’s almost never the patient’s fault; it’s almost always an insurance problem.”

Dr. Barbieri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After years of debate and disagreement, could an improved, more user-friendly version of iPLEDGE be on the horizon?

iPLEDGE, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–required Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program launched in 2010, aims to manage the risks for the teratogenic acne drug isotretinoin and prevent fetal exposure. But it’s been dogged by issues and controversy, causing difficulties for patients and prescribers.

Late in 2023, there seemed to be a reason for optimism that improvements were coming. On November 30, 2023, the FDA informed isotretinoin manufacturers — known as the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturing Group (IPMG) — that they had 6 months to make five changes to the existing iPLEDGE REMS, addressing the controversies and potentially reducing glitches in the program and minimizing the burden of the program on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies — while maintaining safe use of the drug — and to submit their proposal by May 30, 2024.

The timeline for when an improved program might be in place remains unclear.

An FDA spokesperson, without confirming that the submission was submitted on time, recently said the review timeline once such a submission is received is generally 6 months.
 

‘Radio Silence’

No official FDA announcement has been made about the timeline, nor has information been forthcoming from the IPMG, and the silence has been frustrating for John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. He chairs the American Academy of Dermatology Association’s IPLEDGE Work Group, which works with both the FDA and IPMG.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

He began writing about issues with iPLEDGE about 4 years ago, when he and colleagues suggested, among other changes, simplifying the iPLEDGE contraception requirements in a paper published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri expressed frustration about the lack of information on the status of the iPLEDGE changes. “We’ve been given no timeline [beyond the FDA’s May 30 deadline for the IPMG to respond] of what might happen when. We’ve asked what was submitted. No one will share it with us or tell us anything about it. It’s just radio silence.”

Dr. Barbieri is also frustrated at the lack of response from IPMG. Despite repeated requests to the group to include the dermatologists in the discussions, IPMG has repeatedly declined the help, he said.

IPMG appears to have no dedicated website. No response had been received to an email sent to an address attributed to the group asking if it would share the submission to the FDA.

Currently, isotretinoin, originally marketed as Accutane, is marketed under such brand names as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

Asked for specific information on the proposed changes, an FDA spokesperson said in an August 19 email that “the submission to the FDA from the isotretinoin manufacturers will be a major modification, and the review timeline is generally 6 months. Once approved, the isotretinoin manufacturers will need additional time to implement the changes.”

The spokesperson declined to provide additional information on the status of the IPMG proposal, to share the proposal itself, or to estimate the implementation period.


 

Reason for Hope?

In response to the comment that the review generally takes 6 months, Dr. Barbieri said it doesn’t give him much hope, adding that “any delay of implementing these reforms is a missed opportunity to improve the care of patients with acne.” He is also hopeful that the FDA will invite some public comment during the review period “so that stakeholders can share their feedback about the proposal to help guide FDA decision-making and ensure effective implementation.”
 

From Meeting to Mandate

The FDA order for the changes followed a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee in March 2023 about the program requirements. It included feedback from patients and dermatologists and recommendations for changes, with a goal of reducing the burden of the program on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers without compromising patient safety.

The Five Requested Changes

In the November 30 letter, the FDA requested the following from the IPMG:

• Remove the requirement that pregnancy tests be performed in a specially certified lab (such as a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments lab). This would enable the tests to be done in a clinic setting rather than sending patients to a separate lab.
• Allow prescribers the option of letting patients use home pregnancy tests during and after treatment, with steps in place to minimize falsification.
• Remove the waiting period requirement, known as the “19-day lockout,” for patients if they don’t obtain the isotretinoin from the pharmacy within the first 7-day prescription window. Before initiation of isotretinoin, a repeat confirmatory test must be done in a medical setting without any required waiting period.
• Revise the pregnancy registry requirement, removing the objective to document the outcome and associated collection of data for each pregnancy.
• Revise the requirement for prescribers to document patient counseling for those who can’t become pregnant from monthly counseling to counseling at enrollment only. Before each prescription is dispensed, the authorization must verify patient enrollment and prescriber certification. (In December 2021, a new, gender-neutral approach, approved by the FDA, was launched. It places potential patients into two risk categories — those who can become pregnant and those who cannot. Previously, there were three such categories: Females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.)

Perspective on the Requested Changes

Of the requested changes, “really the most important is eliminating the request for monthly counseling for patients who cannot become pregnant,” Dr. Barbieri said. Because of that requirement, all patients need to have monthly visits with a dermatologist to get the medication refills, “and that creates a logistical barrier,” plus reducing time available for dermatologists to care for other patients with other dermatologic issues.

As for missing the 7-day prescription window, Dr. Barbieri said, in his experience, “it’s almost never the patient’s fault; it’s almost always an insurance problem.”

Dr. Barbieri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women by week 12. The drug also improved sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, with a favorable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers conducted two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (OASIS 1 and 2) across 77 sites in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Israel.
• A total of 796 postmenopausal participants aged 40-65 years experiencing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms were included.
• Participants received either 120 mg of elinzanetant or a placebo once daily for 12 weeks, followed by elinzanetant for an additional 14 weeks.
• Primary outcomes measured were changes in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms from baseline to weeks 4 and 12, using an electronic hot flash daily diary.
• Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form 8b (PROMIS SD SF 8b) and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:  

• Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by week 4 (OASIS 1: −3.3 [95% CI, −4.5 to −2.1]; OASIS 2: −3.0 [95% CI, −4.4 to −1.7]; P < .001).
• By week 12, elinzanetant further reduced vasomotor symptom frequency (OASIS 1: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.8 to −1.6]; OASIS 2: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.6 to −1.9]; P < .001).
• Elinzanetant improved sleep disturbances, with significant reductions in PROMIS SD-SF 8b total T scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −5.6 [95% CI, −7.2 to −4.0]; OASIS 2: −4.3 [95% CI, −5.8 to −2.9]; P < .001).
• Menopause-related quality of life also improved significantly with elinzanetant, as indicated by reductions in MENQOL total scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −0.4 [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.2]; OASIS 2: − 0.3 [95% CI, −0.5 to − 0.1]; P = .0059).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results have clinically relevant implications because vasomotor symptoms often pose significant impacts on menopausal individual’s overall health, everyday activities, sleep, quality of life, and work productivity,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The studies were led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP, University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, and James A. Simon, MD, MSCP, George Washington University in Washington, DC. The results were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials included only postmenopausal individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The study relied on patient-reported outcomes, which can be influenced by subjective perception and may introduce bias. The placebo response observed in the trials is consistent with that seen in other vasomotor symptom studies, potentially affecting the interpretation of the results. Further research is needed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of elinzanetant beyond the 26-week treatment period.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Pinkerton received grants from Bayer Pharmaceuticals to the University of Virginia and consulting fees from Bayer Pharmaceutical. Dr. Simon reported grants from Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, Daré Bioscience, Mylan, and Myovant/Sumitomo and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Ascend Therapeutics, California Institute of Integral Studies, Femasys, Khyra, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Pfizer, Pharmavite, Scynexis Inc, Vella Bioscience, and Bayer. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women by week 12. The drug also improved sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, with a favorable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers conducted two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (OASIS 1 and 2) across 77 sites in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Israel.
• A total of 796 postmenopausal participants aged 40-65 years experiencing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms were included.
• Participants received either 120 mg of elinzanetant or a placebo once daily for 12 weeks, followed by elinzanetant for an additional 14 weeks.
• Primary outcomes measured were changes in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms from baseline to weeks 4 and 12, using an electronic hot flash daily diary.
• Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form 8b (PROMIS SD SF 8b) and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:  

• Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by week 4 (OASIS 1: −3.3 [95% CI, −4.5 to −2.1]; OASIS 2: −3.0 [95% CI, −4.4 to −1.7]; P < .001).
• By week 12, elinzanetant further reduced vasomotor symptom frequency (OASIS 1: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.8 to −1.6]; OASIS 2: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.6 to −1.9]; P < .001).
• Elinzanetant improved sleep disturbances, with significant reductions in PROMIS SD-SF 8b total T scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −5.6 [95% CI, −7.2 to −4.0]; OASIS 2: −4.3 [95% CI, −5.8 to −2.9]; P < .001).
• Menopause-related quality of life also improved significantly with elinzanetant, as indicated by reductions in MENQOL total scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −0.4 [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.2]; OASIS 2: − 0.3 [95% CI, −0.5 to − 0.1]; P = .0059).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results have clinically relevant implications because vasomotor symptoms often pose significant impacts on menopausal individual’s overall health, everyday activities, sleep, quality of life, and work productivity,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The studies were led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP, University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, and James A. Simon, MD, MSCP, George Washington University in Washington, DC. The results were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials included only postmenopausal individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The study relied on patient-reported outcomes, which can be influenced by subjective perception and may introduce bias. The placebo response observed in the trials is consistent with that seen in other vasomotor symptom studies, potentially affecting the interpretation of the results. Further research is needed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of elinzanetant beyond the 26-week treatment period.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Pinkerton received grants from Bayer Pharmaceuticals to the University of Virginia and consulting fees from Bayer Pharmaceutical. Dr. Simon reported grants from Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, Daré Bioscience, Mylan, and Myovant/Sumitomo and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Ascend Therapeutics, California Institute of Integral Studies, Femasys, Khyra, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Pfizer, Pharmavite, Scynexis Inc, Vella Bioscience, and Bayer. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women by week 12. The drug also improved sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, with a favorable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers conducted two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (OASIS 1 and 2) across 77 sites in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Israel.
• A total of 796 postmenopausal participants aged 40-65 years experiencing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms were included.
• Participants received either 120 mg of elinzanetant or a placebo once daily for 12 weeks, followed by elinzanetant for an additional 14 weeks.
• Primary outcomes measured were changes in frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms from baseline to weeks 4 and 12, using an electronic hot flash daily diary.
• Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep disturbances and menopause-related quality of life, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance–Short Form 8b (PROMIS SD SF 8b) and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:  

• Elinzanetant significantly reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by week 4 (OASIS 1: −3.3 [95% CI, −4.5 to −2.1]; OASIS 2: −3.0 [95% CI, −4.4 to −1.7]; P < .001).
• By week 12, elinzanetant further reduced vasomotor symptom frequency (OASIS 1: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.8 to −1.6]; OASIS 2: −3.2 [95% CI, −4.6 to −1.9]; P < .001).
• Elinzanetant improved sleep disturbances, with significant reductions in PROMIS SD-SF 8b total T scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −5.6 [95% CI, −7.2 to −4.0]; OASIS 2: −4.3 [95% CI, −5.8 to −2.9]; P < .001).
• Menopause-related quality of life also improved significantly with elinzanetant, as indicated by reductions in MENQOL total scores at week 12 (OASIS 1: −0.4 [95% CI, −0.6 to −0.2]; OASIS 2: − 0.3 [95% CI, −0.5 to − 0.1]; P = .0059).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results have clinically relevant implications because vasomotor symptoms often pose significant impacts on menopausal individual’s overall health, everyday activities, sleep, quality of life, and work productivity,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The studies were led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, MSCP, University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, and James A. Simon, MD, MSCP, George Washington University in Washington, DC. The results were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The OASIS 1 and 2 trials included only postmenopausal individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The study relied on patient-reported outcomes, which can be influenced by subjective perception and may introduce bias. The placebo response observed in the trials is consistent with that seen in other vasomotor symptom studies, potentially affecting the interpretation of the results. Further research is needed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of elinzanetant beyond the 26-week treatment period.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Pinkerton received grants from Bayer Pharmaceuticals to the University of Virginia and consulting fees from Bayer Pharmaceutical. Dr. Simon reported grants from Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, Daré Bioscience, Mylan, and Myovant/Sumitomo and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Ascend Therapeutics, California Institute of Integral Studies, Femasys, Khyra, Madorra, Mayne Pharma, Pfizer, Pharmavite, Scynexis Inc, Vella Bioscience, and Bayer. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.