Federal Practitioner

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Mothers who have a family history of any psychiatric disorder have almost two times the risk of postpartum depression as do mothers without such history, according to a new study.

Mette-Marie Zacher Kjeldsen, MSc, with the National Centre for Register-based Research at Aarhus (Denmark) University, led the study, a meta-analysis that included 26 studies with information on 100,877 women.

Findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

When mothers had a family history of psychiatric disorders, the odds ratio for PPD was 2.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.59). That corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.52-2.09), assuming a 15% postpartum depression prevalence in the general population.
 

Not doomed to develop PPD

Polina Teslyar, MD, a perinatal psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston told this news organization it’s important to point out that though the risk is higher, women with a family psychiatric history should not feel as though they are destined to develop PPD.

“You are still more likely to not have postpartum depression, but it is important to be aware of personal risk factors so that if a person is experiencing that, they ask for help quickly rather than suffering and not knowing something is amiss,” she emphasized. Dr. Teslyar says she does see the higher risk for PPD, which is preventable and treatable, in her own practice when women have had a family history of psychiatric disorders.

The association makes sense, but literature on why that is has been varied, she said, and likely involves both genetics and socioeconomic factors. It’s difficult to tease apart how big a part each plays.

In her perinatal practice she sees women even before they are pregnant to discuss risk factors for PPD so she does ask about family history of psychiatric disorders, specifically about history of PPD and anxiety.

The researchers suggest routine perinatal care should include an easy low-cost, two-part question about both personal and family history of psychiatric disorders.

“As the assessment is possible even prior to conception, this would leave time for planning preventive efforts, such as psychosocial and psychological interventions targeting these at-risk women,” the authors write.
 

Asking about family history a challenge

Dr. Teslyar noted though that one of the challenges in asking about family history is that families may not have openly shared psychiatric history details with offspring. Family members may also report conditions they suspect a family member had rather than having a documented diagnosis.

In places where there is universal health care, she noted, finding documented diagnoses is easier, but otherwise “you’re really taking a subjective interpretation.”

The researchers found that subgroup, sensitivity, and meta–regression analyses aligned with the primary findings. The overall certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.

This study was not able to make clear how the specific diagnoses of family members affect the risk of developing PPD because much of the data from the studies came from self-report and questions were not consistent across the studies.

For instance, only 7 studies asked specifically about first-degree family members and 10 asked about specific diagnoses. Diagnoses ranged from mild affective disorders to more intrusive disorders, such as schizophrenia.

And while this study doesn’t seek to determine why the family history and risk of PPD appear to be connected, the authors offer some possible explanations.

“Growing up in an environment with parents struggling with mental health problems potentially influences the social support received from these parents when going into motherhood,” the authors write. “This particular explanation is supported by umbrella reviews concluding that lack of social support is a significant PPD risk factor.”

Screening, extraction, and assessment of studies included was done independently by two reviewers, increasing validity, the authors note.

The authors state that approximately 10%-15% of new mothers experience PPD, but Dr. Teslyar points out the numbers in the United States are typically quoted at up to 20%-30%. PPD ranges from mild to severe episodes and includes symptoms like those for major depression outside the postpartum period.

Study authors received funding from The Lundbeck Foundation and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. A coauthor, Vibe G. Frokjaer, MD, PhD, has served as consultant and lecturer for H. Lundbeck and Sage Therapeutics. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Teslyar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D deficiency has a causative role in the systemic inflammation that commonly accompanies it, with inflammation declining, reflected by reductions in elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), as vitamin D levels increase to normal levels, new research shows.

However, there is no reverse effect between the two: Changes in CRP levels did not appear to affect vitamin D levels.

“This is the first study of its kind, and the first to show that the well-known relationship between vitamin D status and CRP is at least in part driven by vitamin D,” first author Elina Hypponen, PhD, a professor in nutritional and genetic epidemiology and director of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“Given that the serum CRP level is a widely used biomarker for chronic inflammation, these results suggest that improving vitamin D status may reduce chronic inflammation, but only for people with vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen and coauthors reported in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
 

Vitamin D associated with CRP in ‘L-shaped’ manner

Nutritional factors are known to influence systemic inflammation in a variety of ways. However, there has been debate over the association between vitamin D – specifically, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), an indicator of vitamin D status – and CRP, with some reports of observational associations between the two disputed in more robust randomized trials.

To further evaluate the relationship, the authors performed a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis, using a cohort of 294,970 unrelated participants of White/British ancestry in the UK Biobank, the largest cohort to date with measured serum 25(OH)D concentrations, they noted.

Overall, the average 25(OH)D concentration was 50.0 nmol/L (range, 10-340 nmol/L), with 11.7% (n = 34,403) of participants having concentrations of less than 25 nmol/L, considered deficient.

The analysis showed that genetically predicted serum 25(OH)D was associated with serum CRP in an L-shaped manner, with CRP levels, and hence inflammation, sharply decreasing in relation to increasing 25(OH)D concentration to normal levels.

However, the relationship was only significant among participants with 25(OH)D levels in the deficiency range (< 25 nmol/L), with the association leveling off at about 50 nmol/L of 25(OH)D, which is generally considered a normal level.

The association was supported in further stratified Mendelian randomization analyses, which confirmed an inverse association between serum 25(OH)D in the deficiency range and CRP, but not with higher concentrations of serum vitamin D.

Conversely, neither linear nor nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses showed a causal effect of serum CRP level on 25(OH)D concentrations.

The findings suggest that “improving vitamin D status in the deficiency range could reduce systemic low-grade inflammation and potentially mitigate the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component,” the authors noted.

Dr. Hypponen added that the greatest reductions in CRP are observed with correction of the most severe vitamin D deficiency.

“The strongest benefits of improving concentrations will be seen for people with severe deficiency,” Dr. Hypponen said in an interview.

“In our study, much of the benefit was achieved when people reached the National Academy of Sciences endorsed cutoff of 50 nmol/L [for vitamin D sufficiency].”
 

Prohormone effects?

The anti-inflammatory effects observed with serum vitamin D could be related to its role as a prohormone that can impact vitamin D receptor–expressing immune cells, such as monocytes, B cells, T cells, and antigen-presenting cells, the authors noted.

“Indeed, cell experiments have shown that active vitamin D can inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines, including [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha, interleukin-1b, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12, and promote the production of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory cytokine,” they explained.

In that regard, adequate vitamin D concentrations could be important in preventing inflammation-related complications from obesity and reduce the risk or severity of chronic illnesses with an inflammatory component, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative conditions, and others, the authors noted.
 

Previous studies unable to assess effect of deficiency

While the current findings contradict other studies that have used Mendelian randomization and showed no causal effect of 25(OH)D on CRP, those previous studies only used a standard linear Mendelian randomization method that could not rule out the possibility of a ‘threshold effect’ restricted to vitamin D deficiency, the authors noted.

“Indeed, it is logical to expect that improving vitamin D status would be relevant only in the presence of vitamin D deficiency, whereas any further additions may be redundant and, in the ... extreme of supplementation, might become toxic,” they wrote.

However, the nonlinear Mendelian randomization approach used in the current study allows for better detection of the association, and the authors point out that the method has also been recently used in research showing an adverse effect of vitamin D deficiency on cardiovascular disease risk and mortality, which would not be visible using the standard linear Mendelian randomization approach.

Meanwhile, the current findings add to broader research showing benefits of increases in vitamin D to be mainly limited to those who are deficient, with limited benefit of supplementation for those who are not, Dr. Hypponen emphasized.

“We have repeatedly seen evidence for health benefits for increasing vitamin D concentrations in individuals with very low levels, while for others, there appears to be little to no benefit,” Dr. Hypponen said in a press statement. 

“These findings highlight the importance of avoiding clinical vitamin D deficiency and provide further evidence for the wide-ranging effects of hormonal vitamin D,” she added.

The study was financially supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

COVID-19 can cause disorders of gut-brain interaction, including postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), researchers say.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common with long COVID, also known as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, according to Walter Chan, MD, MPH, and Madhusudan Grover, MBBS.

Dr. Chan, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Dr. Grover, an associate professor of medicine and physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., conducted a review of the literature on COVID-19’s long-term gastrointestinal effects. Their review was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimates of the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms with COVID-19 have ranged as high as 60%, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover report, and the symptoms may be present in patients with long COVID, a syndrome that continues 4 weeks or longer.

In one survey of 749 COVID-19 survivors, 29% reported at least one new chronic gastrointestinal symptom. The most common were heartburn, constipation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Of those with abdominal pain, 39% had symptoms that met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome.

People who have gastrointestinal symptoms after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to have them with long COVID. Psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization, and the loss of smell and taste are predictors of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Infectious gastroenteritis can increase the risk for disorders of gut-brain interaction, especially postinfection IBS, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

COVID-19 likely causes gastrointestinal symptoms through multiple mechanisms. It may suppress angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which protects intestinal cells. It can alter the microbiome. It can cause or worsen weight gain and diabetes. It may disrupt the immune system and trigger an autoimmune reaction. It can cause depression and anxiety, and it can alter dietary habits.

No specific treatments for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with long COVID have emerged, so clinicians should make use of established therapies for disorders of gut-brain interaction, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover recommend.

Beyond adequate sleep and exercise, these may include high-fiber, low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols), gluten-free, low-carbohydrate, or elimination diets.

For diarrhea, they list loperamide, ondansetron, alosetron, eluxadoline, antispasmodics, rifaximin, and bile acid sequestrants.

For constipation, they mention fiber supplements, polyethylene glycol, linaclotide, plecanatide, lubiprostone, tenapanor, tegaserod, and prucalopride.

For modulating intestinal permeability, they recommend glutamine.

Neuromodulation may be achieved with tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, azaperones, and delta ligands, they write.

For psychological therapy, they recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A handful of studies have suggested benefits from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici as probiotic therapies. Additionally, one study showed positive results with a high-fiber formula, perhaps by nourishing short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, Dr. Chan and Dr. Grover write.

Dr. Chan reported financial relationships with Ironwood, Takeda, and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grover reported financial relationships with Takeda, Donga, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, and Alfasigma.

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

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Is there a diet or weight-loss program out there that doesn’t work for those who stick with it during its first 12 weeks?

Truly, the world’s most backwards, upside-down, anti-science, nonsensical diets work over the short haul, fueled by the fact that short-term suffering for weight loss is a skill set that humanity has assiduously cultivated for at least the past 100 years. We’re really good at it!

It’s the keeping the weight off, though, that’s the hitch. Which leads me to the question, why are medical journals, even preeminent nonpredatory ones, publishing 12-week weight-loss program studies as if they have value? And does anyone truly imagine that after over 100 years of trying, there’ll be a short-term diet or program that’ll have the durable, reproducible results that no other short-term diet or program ever has? Why are we still pretending that there’s a magic bullet out there?

Take this study published by Obesity: “Pragmatic implementation of a fully automated online obesity treatment in primary care.” It details a 12-week online, automated, weight-loss program that led completers to lose the roughly 5% of weight that many diets and programs see lost over their first 12 weeks. By its description, aside from its automated provision, the program sounds like pretty much the same boilerplate weight management advice and recommendations that haven’t been shown to lead large numbers of people to sustain long-term weight loss.

Participants were provided with weekly lessons which no doubt in some manner told them that high-calorie foods had high numbers of calories and should be minimized, along with other weight-loss secrets. Users were to upload weekly self-monitored weight, energy intake, and exercise minutes and were told to use a food diary. Their goal was losing 10% of their body weight by consuming 1,200-1,500 calories per day if they weighed less than 250 pounds (113 kg) and 1,500-1,800 calories if they weighed more than 250 pounds, while also telling them to aim for 200 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

What was found was wholly unsurprising. Perhaps speaking to the tremendous and wide-ranging degrees of privilege that are required to prioritize intentional behavior change in the name of health, 79% of those who were given a prescription for the program either didn’t start it or stopped it before the end of the first week.

Of those who actually started the program and completed more than 1 week, despite having been selected as appropriate and interested participants by their physicians, only 20% watched all of the automated programs’ video lessons while only 32% actually bothered to submit all 12 weeks of weight data. Of course, the authors found that those who watched the greatest number of videos and submitted the most self-reported weights lost more weight and ascribed that loss to the program. What the authors did not entertain was the possibility that those who weren’t losing weight, or who were gaining, might simply be less inclined to continue with a program that wasn’t leading them to their desired outcomes or to want to submit their lack of loss or gains.

Short-term weight-loss studies help no one and when, as in this case, the outcomes aren’t even mediocre, and the completion and engagement rates are terrible, the study is still presented as significant and important. This bolsters the harmful stereotype that weight management is achievable by way of simple messages and generic goals. It suggests that it’s individuals who fail programs by not trying hard enough and that those who do, or who want it the most, will succeed. It may also lead patients and clinicians to second-guess the use of antiobesity medications, the current generation of which lead to far greater weight loss and reproducibility than any behavioral program or diet ever has.

The good news here at least is that the small percentage of participants who made it through this program’s 12 weeks are being randomly assigned to differing 9-month maintenance programs which at least will then lead to a 1-year analysis on the completers.

Why this study was published now, rather than pushed until the 1-year data were available, speaks to the pervasiveness of the toxic weight-biased notion that simple education will overcome the physiology forged over millions of years of extreme dietary insecurity.

Our food environment is a veritable floodplain of hyperpalatable foods, and social determinants of health make intentional behavior change in the name of health an unattainable luxury for a huge swath of the population.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

Despite some gains, new research shows ongoing gender imbalances in hematology and oncology, as reflected in the predominantly male presenters at board review lecture series – where early career faculty are also underrepresented.

“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.

“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.

Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.

With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.

During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.

Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.

The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).

courtesy Dr. Al Hadidi

“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.

He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
 

Early-career faculty

In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.

The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.

While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
 

Equal representation remains elusive

The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.

And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.

“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.

The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.

They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.

courtesy Penn Medicine

Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.

“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.

“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’

“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”

Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.

“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.

“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”

The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.