MDedge ObGyn

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Circumferential urethral diverticulum: A surgical conundrum
• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Circumferential urethral diverticulum: A surgical conundrum
• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Circumferential urethral diverticulum: A surgical conundrum
• The surgical approach to the obliterated anterior cul-de-sac
• A minimally-invasive modification for fascia lata mid-urethral sling

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

There are three general classes of antifungal agents (number of agents): azole antifungals (9), echinocandins (3), and polyenes (5). The azole antifungals contain an azole ring and inhibit a wide range of fungi. Echinocandins target the fungal cell wall and the polyenes increase the fungal membrane permeability and lead to cell death.

Pregnancy

Azole antifungals inhibit the growth of fungi. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Clotrimazole (Mycelex), an over-the-counter product, is available as a topical cream. Several studies have found no association between the drug and birth defects.
• Fluconazole (Diflucan) is a teratogen when doses of ≥400 mg/day are used during the first trimester. Smaller doses do not appear to cause embryo/fetal harm.
• Isavuconazonium (Cresemba) if used in pregnancy, exposure of the embryo/fetus would probably be low based on the >99% plasma protein binding, but the plasma half-life is 130 hours. Moreover, the drug is a potent animal teratogen and is best avoided in pregnancy.
• Itraconazole (Onmel, Sporanox, Tolsura), has a low risk, if any, of structural defects, according to what reported human experience suggests.
• Ketoconazole (Xolegel, Extina, Nizoral; 531) does not appear to adversely effect embryos and fetuses, but the human data are very limited. As with any drug, avoiding organogenesis is the best recommendation.
• Miconazole (Oravig) is usually used topically. Small amounts are absorbed from the vagina. The available evidence suggests that the drug does not increase the risk of congenital malformations.
• Posaconazole (Noxafil) does not have reported use in human pregnancy. The animal reproduction data suggest risk. Based on its molecular weight (about 701), the drug will most likely cross the placenta to the embryo/fetus. Thus, the best course is to avoid the drug during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester.
• Voriconazole (Vfend) has one human report of the drug use in pregnancy. The drug was started at about 19 weeks and continued until the woman gave birth at 35 weeks to a healthy male baby. At 6 months of age, the baby remained normal.

Echinocandin antifungals target the fungal cell wall by inhibiting its synthesis. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Anidulafungin (Eraxis; 1,140) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of candidemia and other forms of Candida infections. The animal data suggest low risk.
• Caspofungin (Cancidas; 1,213) has no published human data. It is indicated for presumed fungal infections in febrile, neutropenic patients. The animal data are suggestive of human risk, especially if exposure occurs in the first trimester. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.
• Micafungin (Mycamine; 1,292) has no published human data. It is indicated for the treatment of patients with esophageal candidiasis and for the prophylaxis of Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The animal data in one species suggest high risk. If possible, maternal treatment should be avoided in the first trimester.

Polyene antifungals cause depolarization of the fungal cell membrane to increase the membrane permeability, which leads to cell death. Their trade names and molecular weights:

• Amphotericin b (Amphocin; Fungizone; 924) There are three other amphotericin agents: amphotericin b cholesteryl sulfate (Amphotec); amphotericin b lipid complex (Abelcet); amphotericin b liposomal (AmBisome). No reports linking amphotericin b with congenital defects have been found. The drug does cross the human placenta. Although there was a higher rate of spontaneous abortions in rabbits given amphotericin b, there was no fetal harm in rats and rabbits when given amphotericin b lipid complex.
• Nystatin (Bio-Statin; Mycostatin; Nilstat; 926). The drug does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. Based on published data, the drug can be used at any time in pregnancy.

Breastfeeding

Small amounts of all the above drugs are probably excreted into breast milk if they are used close to breastfeeding. Most can probably be used during breastfeeding, but there are no data for any of these agents. The safest decision is to not use these drugs when breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

In his editorial, "9vHPV vaccine: Prevention of oropharyngeal cancer" (November 2020), Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, asked, "As a gynecologist, should you receive the 9vHPV vaccine?" He noted that the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) now recommends that clinicians "who are routinely exposed to HPVs consider 9vHPV vaccination" and cited a study that found that 19% of 700 gynecologists who performed LEEP procedures without a surgical mask had HPV DNA present in the nose (which was no longer detectable at 24 months). OBG MANAGEMENT followed up with a poll for readers to ask, "will you get the [9vHPV] vaccine?" based on the new ASCCP recommendations.

In his editorial, "9vHPV vaccine: Prevention of oropharyngeal cancer" (November 2020), Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, asked, "As a gynecologist, should you receive the 9vHPV vaccine?" He noted that the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) now recommends that clinicians "who are routinely exposed to HPVs consider 9vHPV vaccination" and cited a study that found that 19% of 700 gynecologists who performed LEEP procedures without a surgical mask had HPV DNA present in the nose (which was no longer detectable at 24 months). OBG MANAGEMENT followed up with a poll for readers to ask, "will you get the [9vHPV] vaccine?" based on the new ASCCP recommendations.

In his editorial, "9vHPV vaccine: Prevention of oropharyngeal cancer" (November 2020), Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, asked, "As a gynecologist, should you receive the 9vHPV vaccine?" He noted that the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) now recommends that clinicians "who are routinely exposed to HPVs consider 9vHPV vaccination" and cited a study that found that 19% of 700 gynecologists who performed LEEP procedures without a surgical mask had HPV DNA present in the nose (which was no longer detectable at 24 months). OBG MANAGEMENT followed up with a poll for readers to ask, "will you get the [9vHPV] vaccine?" based on the new ASCCP recommendations.

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.