Ob.Gyn. News

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

More than a month after the launch of the new iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, the operation still isn’t running smoothly for many dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients. That’s despite improvement attempts by the Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the program to prevent fetal exposure to the teratogenic effects of isotretinoin, and by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, whose members have repeatedly asked the FDA for meetings to discuss solutions. The AADA is the legislative and advocacy arm of AAD.

When the new program launched Dec. 13, 2021, the website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they tried to follow instructions to enter information. Hold times to talk to a live person stretched to hours.

The latest improvement attempt, announced Jan. 14 by the FDA, is a tool created by the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group, the manufacturers responsible for the FDA-mandated REMS program. It is meant to allow prescribers and designees to send log-in links directly to patients’ email accounts through the iPLEDGE REMS portal, bypassing the troublesome call center.

And it’s not the answer, dermatologists said.

“The new tool does not solve issues such as prescribers or pharmacies not being able to access the site, unacceptably long call center wait times, inefficiencies caused by frequent attestation requirements for those who cannot become pregnant, patients becoming ‘locked out’ because they missed a window period through no fault of their own, among others,” said John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor in dermatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The day after the FDA update about the new tool, Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., tweeted: “Lip service and empty words.” He noted that the situation has been “disastrous from the start” as the new platform launched.

Under the iPLEDGE program in place for the acne drug, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.

The aim of the new gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program is to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) are now reduced to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable of getting pregnant).

The problem is  the execution of the new platform. The transition from the old website to the new was done quickly. By most accounts, the Dec. 13 rollout was chaotic, a failure, and disastrous, triggering numerous expressions of frustration on Twitter and other social media, with some calling for the program to be halted until the bugs could be worked out.

“While the new gender-neutral categories are a welcome improvement to the system, the new categorization approach was not the underlying reason for the new platform and its failed rollout, which was instead due to a change in vendor,” Dr. Barbieri told this news organization.

AADA: More recent efforts to improve the system

“We have a letter to the FDA asking for a stakeholders meeting to include us, the IPMG, and pharmacists because there are ongoing problems, though there have been some improvement in terms of certain elements,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview shortly after the FDA posted the update on the new tool. “That said, there are many patients who have not gotten isotretinoin during the 1 month since the roll-out of the new platform.”

What still needs to be fixed? “We have ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency of the IPMG, about call center wait times, actual number of prescriptions on the hands of patients compared to the previous month, and those patients who can get pregnant who – despite complying with all of the REMS requirements – are being locked out because of the lack of timely attestation to their negative pregnancy status due to the website, not the patients themselves,” Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

“We are continuing to advocate to have decreased attestation requirements for individuals who cannot become pregnant – because this will improve the efficiency of the system for those patients for whom the REMS program goals are truly intended – those who can become pregnant, since the primary aim of the REMS program is to minimize fetal exposure.”

An AADA spokesperson said that the IPMG has invited the AADA to a joint stakeholders meeting on Jan. 26, along with representatives from the FDA and pharmacy industry.
 

Spotty progress

“The iPLEDGE situation is as frustrating as ever,” said Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, after the FDA’s Jan. 14 update was released. “It’s like they never tested the new website before deploying it.”

Among the issues he has experienced in his practice, he said, is an instance in which iPLEDGE swapped the first names of a mother and daughter, so it was impossible to fill the prescription. “It happened twice in the same day,” Dr. Goldberg said. The patient had to call iPLEDGE to fix this, but the call center wasn’t taking calls.

In today’s technology environment, he said, it’s hard to believe that “we have to put up with this.”

Some have seen success. ‘’The tool is working fine on our end,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, pharmacy manager at Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y. However, he added that some doctors and patients are still having issues. He encourages dermatologists still having issues with the system to reach out to independent pharmacies that have processed iPLEDGE prescriptions and ‘’lean on them to assist.”

This news organization contacted CVS and Walgreens about how the system is working at their locations, but has not yet received a response. 

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, Dr. Barbieri, and Dr. Peebles have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This story was updated on 1/24/22.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

An intensive weight-loss intervention prior to conception had no effect on birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility, compared with a standard weight-maintenance program, based on data from nearly 400 women.

Obese women experiencing infertility are often counseled to lose weight before attempting fertility treatments in order to improve outcomes based on epidemiologic evidence of an association between obesity and infertility, but data to support this advice are limited, wrote Richard S. Legro, MD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.

The researchers proposed that a more intensive preconception weight loss intervention followed by infertility treatment would be more likely to yield a healthy live birth, compared with a standard weight maintenance intervention.

In an open-label study published in PLOS Medicine, the researchers randomized 379 women at nine academic centers to a standard lifestyle group that followed a weight-maintenance plan focused on physical activity, but not weight loss; or an intensive intervention of diet and medication with a target weight loss of 7%. Both interventions lasted for 16 weeks between July 2015 and July 2018. After the interventions, patients in both groups underwent standardized empiric fertility treatment with three cycles of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination.

The primary outcome was a live birth at 37 weeks’ gestation or later, with no congenital abnormalities and a birth weight between 2,500 g and 4,000 g. Baseline characteristics including age, education level, race, and body mass index (BMI) were similar between the groups.

The incidence of healthy live births was not significantly different between the standard treatment and intensive treatment groups (15.2% vs. 12.2%; P = 0.40) by the final follow-up time of September 2019. However, women in the intensive group had significantly greater weight loss, compared with the standard group (–6.6% vs. –0.3%; P < .001). Women in the intensive group also showed improvements in metabolic health. Notably, the incidence of metabolic syndrome dropped from 53.6% to 49.4% in the standard group, compared with a decrease from 52.8% to 32.2% in the intensive group over the 16-week study period, the researchers wrote.

Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in the intensive group, but these were consistent with documented side effects of the weight loss medication used (Orlistat).

First-trimester pregnancy loss was higher in the intensive group, compared with the standard group (33.3% vs. 23.7%), but the difference was not significant. Most pregnancy complications, including preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes had nonsignificant improvements in the intensive group, compared with the standard group. Similarly, nonsignificant improvements were noted in the intervention group for intrauterine growth restriction and admission to the neonatal ICU.

Limitations of the study included the relatively small number of pregnancies, which prevented assessment of rare complications in subgroups, and the challenge of matching control interventions, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the focus on women with unexplained infertility, the inclusion of a comparison group, and the collection of data on complications after conception, they wrote.

Avenues for future research include interventions of different duration and intensity prior to conception, which may improve outcomes, the researchers said in their discussion of the findings. “A period of weight stabilization and maintenance after a weight-loss intervention prior to commencing infertility therapy is worth exploring,” they noted, but couples eager to conceive may be reluctant to wait for a weight-loss intervention, they added.

“Our findings directly impact current standards of clinical care, where women who are obese with unexplained infertility are to our knowledge routinely counseled to lose weight prior to initiation of infertility treatment,” they concluded.
 

Data may inform patient discussions

The current study is important because a large amount of previous research has shown an association between obesity and decreased fecundity in women and men, Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., said in an interview.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of obesity in the United States remains more than 40%, said Dr. Trolice. “Patients and physicians would benefit from clarity of obesity’s effect, if any, on reproduction,” he noted.

In contrast to the authors’ hypothesis, “the study did not find a difference in the live birth rate following up to three cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) between an intensive weight loss group [and] women who exercised without weight loss,” said Dr. Trolice. “Prior to this study, many reports suggested a decline in fertility with elevations in BMI, particularly during fertility treatment,” he added.

The take-home message from the current study is a that an elevated BMI, while possibly increasing the risks of metabolic disorders, did not appear to impact fecundity, he said.

The authors therefore concluded, “There is not strong evidence to recommend weight loss prior to conception in women who are obese with unexplained infertility,” Dr. Trolice said.

Regardless of the potential effect of preconception weight loss on fertility, barriers to starting a weight loss program include a woman’s eagerness to move forward with fertility treatments without waiting for weight loss, Dr. Trolice noted. “By the time a woman reaches an infertility specialist, she has been trying to conceive for at least 1 year,” he said. “At the initial consultation, these patients are anxious to undergo necessary additional diagnostic testing followed by treatment. Consequently, initiation of a weight-loss program is viewed as a delay toward the goal of family building,” he explained.

“More research is needed to demonstrate the safety of intensive weight loss preconception,” said Dr. Trolice. However, he said, “the issue of elevated BMI and increased risk of pregnancy complications remains, but this study provides important information for providers regarding counseling their patients desiring pregnancy.”

The study was supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Nutrisystem provided discounted coupons for food allotments in the standardized treatment group, and FitBit provided the study organizers with discounted Fitbits for activity monitoring. Lead author Dr. Legro disclosed consulting fees from InSupp, Ferring, Bayer, Abbvie and Fractyl, and research sponsorship from Guerbet and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

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. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

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. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The experience of practicing reproductive psychiatry in the context of the pandemic has highlighted unique situations I’ve written about in previous columns that have affected pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, such as the management of anxiety and insomnia.

The pandemic has also seen a shift to telemedicine and an opportunity to use virtual platforms to engage with colleagues in our subspecialty across the country. These forums of engagement, which we realize virtually with so many of our colleagues, has prompted me to refine and galvanize what I consider to be some principles that guide frequently encountered clinical scenarios in reproductive psychiatry.

To open 2022, I wanted to revisit the practices I nearly “always” (or conversely, “never”) follow as a reproductive psychiatrist across the numerous clinical situations and variations on the associated clinical themes encountered as we see patients during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
 

Things we ‘always’ do

1. I continue to make maternal euthymia the North Star of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Before pregnancy, maternal euthymia may be realized through optimization of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments and waiting to conceive until patients are emotionally well. Sustaining euthymia during pregnancy is a critical issue because of the extent to which euthymia during pregnancy predicts postpartum course. According to many studies, postpartum euthymia is the strongest predictor of long-term neurobehavioral outcome and risk for later child psychopathology. At the end of the day, there are few things I would not do with respect to treatment of maternal psychiatric disorder if the upside afforded maternal euthymia.

2. I almost always treat with consistency of medication across the peripartum period.

Although there have been discussions about the wisdom of changing medications, such as antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers, that have afforded euthymia during pregnancy as patients approach their delivery date, the evidence base supporting switching medications at that time is exceedingly sparse. The time to adjust or to modify is typically not just prior to delivery unless it is to prevent postpartum psychiatric disorder (see below).

3. I simplify regimens before pregnancy if it’s unclear which medications have afforded patients euthymia.

We have a growing appreciation that polypharmacy is the rule in treatment of affective disorder for both unipolar and bipolar illness. Consultation before pregnancy is the ideal time to take a particularly careful history and think about simplifying regimens where adding medicines hasn’t clearly provided enhanced clinical benefit to the patient.

4. When making a treatment plan for psychiatric disorder during pregnancy, I consider the impact of untreated psychiatric disorder (even if not absolutely quantifiable) on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

Perhaps now more than even 5-10 years ago, we have better data describing the adverse effects of untreated psychiatric illness on fetal, neonatal, and maternal well-being.

We always try to deliberately consider the effect of a specific treatment on fetal well-being. Less attention (and science) has focused on the effect on pregnancy of deferring treatment; historically, this has not been adequately quantified in the risk-benefit decision. Yet, there is growing evidence of the increased adverse effects of activating the stress axis on everything from intrauterine fetal programming in the brain to effects on obstetrical outcomes such as preterm labor and delivery.

5. I appreciate the value of postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with bipolar disorder to mitigate risk of relapse.

We have spoken over the last 20 months of the pandemic, particularly in reproductive psychiatry circles, about the importance of keeping reproductive-age women with bipolar disorder emotionally well as they plan to conceive, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period. The management of bipolar disorder during this time can be a humbling experience. Clinical roughening can be quick and severe, and so we do everything that we can for these women.

The area in which we have the strongest evidence base for mitigating risk with bipolar women is the value of postpartum prophylaxis during the peripartum period, regardless of what patients have done with their mood-stabilizing medications during pregnancy. Given the risk for postpartum disease, even though there are varying amounts of evidence on prophylactic benefit of specific mood stabilizers (i.e., lithium vs. atypical antipsychotics), the value of prophylaxis against worsening of bipolar disorder postpartum is widely accepted.

The importance of this has been particularly underscored during the pandemic where postpartum support, although available, has been more tenuous given the fluctuations in COVID-19 status around the country. The availability of friends and loved ones as support during the postpartum period has become less reliable in certain circumstances during the pandemic. In some cases, COVID-19 surges have wreaked havoc on travel plans and support persons have contracted the virus, rendering on-site support nonviable given safety concerns. Last-minute shifts of support plans have been responsible for disruption of care plans for new moms and by extension, have affected the ability to protect the sleep of bipolar women, which is critical. Keeping bipolar women well during the postpartum period with plans and backup plans for management remains critical.
 

Things we ‘never’ do

1. I never taper antidepressants (just prior to delivery), I never check plasma levels of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (across pregnancy, or just prior to labor and delivery), and I never use sodium valproate (during pregnancy).

Although there has been some discussion about the potential to mitigate risk for maternal or neonatal toxicity with lowering of agents such as lithium or lamotrigine during pregnancy, I do not routinely check plasma levels or arbitrarily change the dose of antidepressants, lithium, or lamotrigine during pregnancy in the absence of clinical symptoms.

We know full well that plasma levels of medications decline during pregnancy because of hemodilution with lithium and antidepressants and, in the case of lamotrigine, the effects of rising estrogen concentration during pregnancy on the metabolism of lamotrigine. While several studies have shown the decrease of SSRI concentration during pregnancy absent a change in dose of medication, these data have not correlated changes in plasma concentration of SSRI with a frank change in clinical status across pregnancy. Unlike what we see in conditions like epilepsy, where doses are increased to maintain therapeutic plasma levels to mitigate risk for seizure, those therapeutic plasma levels do not clearly exist for the psychiatric medications most widely used to treat psychiatric disorders.

We also almost never use sodium valproate in reproductive-age women despite its efficacy in both the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder given the risk of both major malformations associated with first-trimester fetal exposure to valproate and the data suggesting longer-term adverse neurobehavioral effects associated with its use during pregnancy.

2. We never suggest patients defer pregnancy based on their underlying psychiatric disorder.

Our role is to provide the best information regarding reproductive safety of psychiatric medications and risks of untreated psychiatric disorder to patients as they and relevant parties weigh the risks of pursuing one treatment or another. Those are private choices, and women and their partners make private decisions applying their own calculus with respect to moving forward with plans to conceive.

3. We never switch antidepressants once a woman has become pregnant.

Although we continue to see patients switched to older SSRIs such as sertraline with documentation of pregnancy, a patient’s road to getting well is sometimes very lengthy. In the absence of indicting reproductive safety data for any particular antidepressant, for patients who have gotten well on an antidepressant, even one for which we have less information, we stay the course and do not switch arbitrarily to an older SSRI for which we may have more reproductive safety data.

If we have the luxury prior to pregnancy to switch a patient to an untried and better studied antidepressant with more data supporting safety, we do so. But this is rarely the case. More often, we see women presenting with a newly documented pregnancy (frequently unplanned, with half of pregnancies across the country still being unplanned across sociodemographic lines) on an antidepressant with varying amounts of reproductive safety information available for the medicine being taken, and frequently after failed previous trials of other antidepressants. In this scenario, we rarely see the time of a newly documented pregnancy as an opportunity to pursue a new trial of an antidepressant without known efficacy for that patient; we stay the course and hope for sustained euthymia on the drug which has afforded euthymia to date.
 

Final thoughts

Dos and don’ts are relative in reproductive psychiatry. We tend to apply available data and clinical experience as we guide patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the most currently available rigorous reproductive safety data, as well as the individual patient’s clinical status and her personal wishes.

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. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

More pregnant Americans indulged – and overindulged – in alcohol from 2018 to 2020 than in previous years, but researchers found no sharp increase associated with the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The pandemic notwithstanding, health officials worry about a rising tide of pregnant women using alcohol and binge drinking since the CDC survey began in 2011. In the period ending in 2013, 1 in 10 women reported having had a drink in the previous 30 days; by 2017, that figure was 1 in 9; and in the latest survey, the number had risen to 1 in 7.

That mark is “the highest to date,” said Lucas Gosdin, PhD, MPH, an epidemic intelligence officer at the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and first author of the report, which was published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“We’re concerned that this number has been slowly increasing,” Amanda Cohn, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, told this news organization. “We need to be doing more outreach, both to pregnant persons as well as health care providers who are caring for them.”

Exposure to alcohol in the womb has been linked to a wide range of neurologic and physical problems in children, ranging from fetal alcohol syndrome to stunted learning abilities. Even if these problems are unlikely, experts insist there’s no known “safe” amount of alcohol a pregnant woman can have.

Dr. Cohn likened alcohol use to that of tobacco. “Lots of people smoke who don’t get lung cancer. Still, everyone is at an increased risk,” she said. “The safest way to not get lung cancer is to not smoke at all. It’s a behavior that can prevent additional harm.”

The report summarizes the results of a phone survey of 6,327 pregnant Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The survey asked whether women had consumed an alcoholic beverage or had at least four drinks on one occasion – a common definition of binge drinking – in the past 30 days.

According to the report, 13.5% of women reported using alcohol, and 5.2% said they had binged on alcohol. Women who experienced frequent mental distress – describing their mental health as “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month – were twice as likely to drink and three times likelier to binge drink, the researchers found.

The increase within the 3-year period was roughly the same as in previous surveys.

“There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption by pregnant adults in 2020 relative to 2019, despite possible increased alcohol sales and consumption among the general population during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states.

“That is one finding that was unexpected but that we were pleased to see,” Dr. Gosdin said.

Experts stressed that the survey covered only the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We’re still in the depths of it,” Samuel T. Bauer, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “People with alcohol use disorders certainly have been challenged during COVID. I think this is a preliminary answer.”

Dr. Gosdin said the effects of the pandemic on drinking habits bear watching. “We are concerned about the impacts of COVID-19,” he said. “We know it’s affected how people access regular care.”

Although virtual care has “exploded during COVID,” Dr. Bauer said, insurers have “turned off reimbursing” for doctor-patient visits via telephone, but not for visits by Internet-based video platforms like Zoom.

That split creates equity issues in many parts of the country, including his home state of North Carolina, where broadband is scarce, and patients may live 100 miles or more away from caregivers.

The “full-blown birth defect” of fetal alcohol syndrome is just the most visible hazard of drinking. Other medical and developmental issues include speech delays, slower learning and reading skills, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and problems with the heart and kidneys.

So, when Dr. Bauer encounters patients who believe that a few drinks will not harm their baby, he says he tells them: “’Why is this going to be where you put your flag?’ That leads to a different form of conversation.”

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

Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.

Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.

The Biden administration announced Jan. 10 that every person with private insurance can get full coverage for eight rapid tests a month. You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.

Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.

1. Are the tests really free?

Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.

2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?

If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.

Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.

3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?

Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.

Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.

The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.

As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.

4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?

It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?

Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.

And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.

A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.

5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?

The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.

But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.

Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.

The Biden administration announced Jan. 10 that every person with private insurance can get full coverage for eight rapid tests a month. You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.

Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.

1. Are the tests really free?

Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.

2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?

If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.

Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.

3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?

Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.

Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.

The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.

As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.

4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?

It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?

Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.

And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.

A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.

5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?

The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.

But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.

Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.

The Biden administration announced Jan. 10 that every person with private insurance can get full coverage for eight rapid tests a month. You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.

Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.

1. Are the tests really free?

Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.

2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?

If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.

Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.

3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?

Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.

Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.

The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.

As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.

4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?

It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?

Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.

And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.

A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.

5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?

The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.

But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

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

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

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

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.

The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.

The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.

Yet there is good reason for optimism among leading U.S. experts because of how far science and medicine have come since the World Health Organization first acknowledged person-to-person transmission of the virus in January 2020.

Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.

Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.

But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
 

Time to change COVID thinking

Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.

The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”

Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”

But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.

One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.

“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
 

Omicron will bump up natural immunity

Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.

Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.

Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.

Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.

So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.

His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”

Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.

As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
 

Masks may be around for years

Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.

“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
 

Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital

Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.

As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.

Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.

Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.

Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.

Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.

Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.

“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
 

U.S. behind in several areas

Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.

In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.

One such shortfall is public trust.

This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.

Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.

Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.

“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”

Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.

“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”

Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.

“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.

Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.

The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.

It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.

“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.

WebMD.com

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

Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.

The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.

The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.

Yet there is good reason for optimism among leading U.S. experts because of how far science and medicine have come since the World Health Organization first acknowledged person-to-person transmission of the virus in January 2020.

Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.

Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.

But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
 

Time to change COVID thinking

Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.

The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”

Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”

But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.

One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.

“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
 

Omicron will bump up natural immunity

Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.

Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.

Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.

Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.

So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.

His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”

Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.

As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
 

Masks may be around for years

Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.

“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
 

Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital

Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.

As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.

Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.

Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.

Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.

Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.

Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.

“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
 

U.S. behind in several areas

Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.

In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.

One such shortfall is public trust.

This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.

Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.

Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.

“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”

Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.

“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”

Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.

“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.

Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.

The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.

It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.

“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.

WebMD.com

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

Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.

The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.

The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.

Yet there is good reason for optimism among leading U.S. experts because of how far science and medicine have come since the World Health Organization first acknowledged person-to-person transmission of the virus in January 2020.

Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.

Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.

But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
 

Time to change COVID thinking

Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.

The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”

Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”

But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.

One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.

“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
 

Omicron will bump up natural immunity

Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.

Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.

Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.

Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.

So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.

His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”

Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.

As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
 

Masks may be around for years

Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.

“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
 

Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital

Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.

As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.

Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.

Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.

Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.

Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.

Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.

“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
 

U.S. behind in several areas

Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.

In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.

One such shortfall is public trust.

This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.

Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.

Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.

“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”

Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.

“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”

Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.

“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.

Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.

The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.

It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.

“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.

WebMD.com

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

Over the holiday season I had the pleasure of finally reading the national bestseller, Detransition, Baby. On the surface, the story depicts the complex relationships between Reese, a transgender woman who strongly desires a family, her ex-wife, Ames – a transgender woman who detransitioned to live as a cisgender man – and Ames’ cisgender female partner, who is unexpectedly pregnant with his child. The story delves much deeper than the relationships between these characters, as it exceptionally articulates many of the emotional intricacies of the transgender experience and addresses one of the most taboo topics in the transgender community – detransitioning and regret.

The terms “transition” and “detransition” have fallen out of favor in the vernacular of the transgender population as they incorrectly imply that gender identity is contingent upon gender-affirmation processes.^1,2 More importantly, the terms “detransition” and regret are not synonymous. Conflating these terms has undermined the intrinsic nature of gender identity, which has resulted in political and legal consequences seeking to limit or outright ban care for transgender patients.

As a gender-affirming surgeon, one of the most common questions I get asked is the rate of regret patients have after their surgeries. While I have no issue answering the question when it is presented, I do not hesitate to point out some of the problematic subtext inherent in such inquiries. Within the line of questioning, many often comment, “It’s so permanent,” “I can’t believe people can do this to their bodies,” or “How sure are patients before undergoing these surgeries?” While these comments and queries can be downright offensive, they seem to stem from the difficulty people have comprehending gender dysphoria and the painstaking steps people take to affirm their identity. The implication of these comments also reveals a more deep-seated issue – general distrust of individual bodily autonomy, personal identity, and choice.

For the obstetrician-gynecologist, understanding the concept of autonomous, patient-centered decision-making should be second nature, as we face a similar line of interrogation when discussing abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. No other field faces this level of scrutiny when it comes to defending a patient’s bodily autonomy. For example, given the history of reproductive injustice with tubal ligation procedures, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued clear guidelines regarding counseling of women while acknowledging the tenuous history of these procedures with minority subgroups. According to their committee opinion, ethical counseling for such a permanent procedure involves understanding the content of information presented to the patient, how that information is conveyed, and self-reflection on the part of the provider.³ The approach to counseling and understanding gender-affirming care is no different.

I want to be clear that regret after gender-affirming surgery is rare, occurring in 0%-3.8% of patients.^4-6 In a separate study, 91% of patients expressed significant improvement in quality of life after surgery.⁷ However, what is disheartening about patients who experience surgical regret is that it originates from continued difficulty from the transition process itself and ongoing discrimination – even though the patient’s physical characteristics match their gender identity.^4-6 Similarly, in another survey which examined 17,151 participants who had pursued gender affirmation (broadly defined), approximately 2,242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition.² Among these adults, the vast majority (82.5%), cited external factors such as school harassment, sexual violence, family pressure, and social stigma as reasons for detransitioning.² Other associated factors included male sex assigned at birth, nonbinary gender identity, bisexual orientation, and having an unsupportive family.²

When Ames is explaining his “detransition” to his cisfemale partner, he states: “I got sick of living as trans …[sic]… I am trans, but I don’t need to do trans.”⁸ While there is still more research needed to further understand detransitioning and surgical regret, these few studies demonstrate a heart-breaking reality – in many aspects of our society it is still extremely difficult to live as a transgender person.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She did not report any disclosures.

References

1. National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, A program of the Fenway Institute: LGBTQIA+ glossary of terms for health care teams. 2020. Available at www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Glossary-2020.08.30.pdf. Accessed Dec. 30, 2021.

2. Turban JL et al. LGBT Health 2021;8(4):273-80.

3. Sterilization of women: Ethical issues and considerations. Committee Opinion No. 695. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e109-16.

4. Ruppin U, Pfafflin F. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:1321-9.

5. Lawrence AA. Arch Sex Behav. 2003;32:299-315.

6. Landen M et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1998;97:284-9.

7. Papdopulos NA et al. J Sex Med. 2017;14(5):721-30.

8. Peters T. Detransition, Baby. New York: Penguin Random House, 2021.

Over the holiday season I had the pleasure of finally reading the national bestseller, Detransition, Baby. On the surface, the story depicts the complex relationships between Reese, a transgender woman who strongly desires a family, her ex-wife, Ames – a transgender woman who detransitioned to live as a cisgender man – and Ames’ cisgender female partner, who is unexpectedly pregnant with his child. The story delves much deeper than the relationships between these characters, as it exceptionally articulates many of the emotional intricacies of the transgender experience and addresses one of the most taboo topics in the transgender community – detransitioning and regret.

The terms “transition” and “detransition” have fallen out of favor in the vernacular of the transgender population as they incorrectly imply that gender identity is contingent upon gender-affirmation processes.^1,2 More importantly, the terms “detransition” and regret are not synonymous. Conflating these terms has undermined the intrinsic nature of gender identity, which has resulted in political and legal consequences seeking to limit or outright ban care for transgender patients.

As a gender-affirming surgeon, one of the most common questions I get asked is the rate of regret patients have after their surgeries. While I have no issue answering the question when it is presented, I do not hesitate to point out some of the problematic subtext inherent in such inquiries. Within the line of questioning, many often comment, “It’s so permanent,” “I can’t believe people can do this to their bodies,” or “How sure are patients before undergoing these surgeries?” While these comments and queries can be downright offensive, they seem to stem from the difficulty people have comprehending gender dysphoria and the painstaking steps people take to affirm their identity. The implication of these comments also reveals a more deep-seated issue – general distrust of individual bodily autonomy, personal identity, and choice.

For the obstetrician-gynecologist, understanding the concept of autonomous, patient-centered decision-making should be second nature, as we face a similar line of interrogation when discussing abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. No other field faces this level of scrutiny when it comes to defending a patient’s bodily autonomy. For example, given the history of reproductive injustice with tubal ligation procedures, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued clear guidelines regarding counseling of women while acknowledging the tenuous history of these procedures with minority subgroups. According to their committee opinion, ethical counseling for such a permanent procedure involves understanding the content of information presented to the patient, how that information is conveyed, and self-reflection on the part of the provider.³ The approach to counseling and understanding gender-affirming care is no different.

I want to be clear that regret after gender-affirming surgery is rare, occurring in 0%-3.8% of patients.^4-6 In a separate study, 91% of patients expressed significant improvement in quality of life after surgery.⁷ However, what is disheartening about patients who experience surgical regret is that it originates from continued difficulty from the transition process itself and ongoing discrimination – even though the patient’s physical characteristics match their gender identity.^4-6 Similarly, in another survey which examined 17,151 participants who had pursued gender affirmation (broadly defined), approximately 2,242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition.² Among these adults, the vast majority (82.5%), cited external factors such as school harassment, sexual violence, family pressure, and social stigma as reasons for detransitioning.² Other associated factors included male sex assigned at birth, nonbinary gender identity, bisexual orientation, and having an unsupportive family.²

When Ames is explaining his “detransition” to his cisfemale partner, he states: “I got sick of living as trans …[sic]… I am trans, but I don’t need to do trans.”⁸ While there is still more research needed to further understand detransitioning and surgical regret, these few studies demonstrate a heart-breaking reality – in many aspects of our society it is still extremely difficult to live as a transgender person.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She did not report any disclosures.

References

1. National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, A program of the Fenway Institute: LGBTQIA+ glossary of terms for health care teams. 2020. Available at www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Glossary-2020.08.30.pdf. Accessed Dec. 30, 2021.

2. Turban JL et al. LGBT Health 2021;8(4):273-80.

3. Sterilization of women: Ethical issues and considerations. Committee Opinion No. 695. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e109-16.

4. Ruppin U, Pfafflin F. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:1321-9.

5. Lawrence AA. Arch Sex Behav. 2003;32:299-315.

6. Landen M et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1998;97:284-9.

7. Papdopulos NA et al. J Sex Med. 2017;14(5):721-30.

8. Peters T. Detransition, Baby. New York: Penguin Random House, 2021.

Over the holiday season I had the pleasure of finally reading the national bestseller, Detransition, Baby. On the surface, the story depicts the complex relationships between Reese, a transgender woman who strongly desires a family, her ex-wife, Ames – a transgender woman who detransitioned to live as a cisgender man – and Ames’ cisgender female partner, who is unexpectedly pregnant with his child. The story delves much deeper than the relationships between these characters, as it exceptionally articulates many of the emotional intricacies of the transgender experience and addresses one of the most taboo topics in the transgender community – detransitioning and regret.

The terms “transition” and “detransition” have fallen out of favor in the vernacular of the transgender population as they incorrectly imply that gender identity is contingent upon gender-affirmation processes.^1,2 More importantly, the terms “detransition” and regret are not synonymous. Conflating these terms has undermined the intrinsic nature of gender identity, which has resulted in political and legal consequences seeking to limit or outright ban care for transgender patients.

As a gender-affirming surgeon, one of the most common questions I get asked is the rate of regret patients have after their surgeries. While I have no issue answering the question when it is presented, I do not hesitate to point out some of the problematic subtext inherent in such inquiries. Within the line of questioning, many often comment, “It’s so permanent,” “I can’t believe people can do this to their bodies,” or “How sure are patients before undergoing these surgeries?” While these comments and queries can be downright offensive, they seem to stem from the difficulty people have comprehending gender dysphoria and the painstaking steps people take to affirm their identity. The implication of these comments also reveals a more deep-seated issue – general distrust of individual bodily autonomy, personal identity, and choice.

For the obstetrician-gynecologist, understanding the concept of autonomous, patient-centered decision-making should be second nature, as we face a similar line of interrogation when discussing abortion, contraception, and pregnancy. No other field faces this level of scrutiny when it comes to defending a patient’s bodily autonomy. For example, given the history of reproductive injustice with tubal ligation procedures, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has issued clear guidelines regarding counseling of women while acknowledging the tenuous history of these procedures with minority subgroups. According to their committee opinion, ethical counseling for such a permanent procedure involves understanding the content of information presented to the patient, how that information is conveyed, and self-reflection on the part of the provider.³ The approach to counseling and understanding gender-affirming care is no different.

I want to be clear that regret after gender-affirming surgery is rare, occurring in 0%-3.8% of patients.^4-6 In a separate study, 91% of patients expressed significant improvement in quality of life after surgery.⁷ However, what is disheartening about patients who experience surgical regret is that it originates from continued difficulty from the transition process itself and ongoing discrimination – even though the patient’s physical characteristics match their gender identity.^4-6 Similarly, in another survey which examined 17,151 participants who had pursued gender affirmation (broadly defined), approximately 2,242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition.² Among these adults, the vast majority (82.5%), cited external factors such as school harassment, sexual violence, family pressure, and social stigma as reasons for detransitioning.² Other associated factors included male sex assigned at birth, nonbinary gender identity, bisexual orientation, and having an unsupportive family.²

When Ames is explaining his “detransition” to his cisfemale partner, he states: “I got sick of living as trans …[sic]… I am trans, but I don’t need to do trans.”⁸ While there is still more research needed to further understand detransitioning and surgical regret, these few studies demonstrate a heart-breaking reality – in many aspects of our society it is still extremely difficult to live as a transgender person.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She did not report any disclosures.

References

1. National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, A program of the Fenway Institute: LGBTQIA+ glossary of terms for health care teams. 2020. Available at www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Glossary-2020.08.30.pdf. Accessed Dec. 30, 2021.

2. Turban JL et al. LGBT Health 2021;8(4):273-80.

3. Sterilization of women: Ethical issues and considerations. Committee Opinion No. 695. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e109-16.

4. Ruppin U, Pfafflin F. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:1321-9.

5. Lawrence AA. Arch Sex Behav. 2003;32:299-315.

6. Landen M et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1998;97:284-9.

7. Papdopulos NA et al. J Sex Med. 2017;14(5):721-30.

8. Peters T. Detransition, Baby. New York: Penguin Random House, 2021.