MDedge ObGyn

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

“Increases in age at menarche are significantly associated with increases in cardiovascular health among women,” reported Yi Zheng, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mr. Zheng and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 20,447 women aged 18 or older using data from a nationally representative sample of the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examinations Survey (NHANES). In all, 2,292 (11.2%) were determined to have ideal cardiovascular health (CVH).

Early menarche was confirmed to be related to increases in body mass index and greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, consistent with earlier studies, the authors confirmed. Those with nonideal CVH were more likely to have reported early menarche; those with ideal CVH were not only younger, but they also had college or graduate level education or above and higher poverty income ratio. Those with ideal CVH were also less likely to be to be of non-Hispanic Black heritage or to have been previously married.
 

BMI may be the missing link between early menarche and CVH

Unlike previous studies, the researchers found no significant link between early menarche and blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking, physical activity, or diet using fully adjusted model data, leading them to conclude that “the associations between early menarche and CVH might be mainly driven by its associations with BMI.”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues suggested that future studies should evaluate the causal relationships between age at menarche and BMI and whether genetic factors and childhood lifestyle predispose women to early menarche and obesity.

“Our findings further highlighted that age at menarche may be used to identify high-risk population[s] and to guide targeted preventions to maintain and improve CVH,” the authors noted. Although they cited several strengths and limitations of the study, they emphasized that the wide use of Life’s Simple 7 factors (blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose levels, smoking, BMI, physical activity, and diet) to measure CVH should “only be regarded as a surrogate construct, and future efforts are needed to better characterize CVH,” they cautioned.
 

The findings offer an opportunity to more closely track CVH in racial and ethnic groups

In a separate editorial, Ewa M. Gross-Sawicka, MD, PhD, and Eiran Z. Gorodeski, MD, MPH, both of the Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, observed: “That the authors found African American women had the lowest overall CVH scores, even after adjusting for differences, highlights the importance of beginning cardiovascular health education earlier, especially for those in certain racial and ethnic groups.”

Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski also raised several key questions that warrant further research: “1) Why do women who experience late menarche have improved cardiovascular health while those who experience early menarche have reduced cardiovascular health? 2) Why do the ‘beneficial’ effects of late menarche on CVH last 10 years longer than the ‘detrimental’ effects of early menarche? 3) Since both early and late menarche are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, are women who experience menarche at an older age more cognizant of the cardiovascular risks compared with younger women and adjust their CVH accordingly?”

A key point also worth further consideration: “It is unclear whether age at menarche is directly associated with CVH, or if this relationship is mediated by the association of age at menarche and BMI and/or hyperglycemia,” said Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski.

In an interview, Jan Shifren, MD, director, Midlife Women’s Health Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, noted, “The principal finding is that early menarche is associated with worse cardiovascular health, which may reflect the adverse impact of obesity and glucose intolerance on CVH, as obesity also is a risk factor for early menarche. The association between early menarche and worse CVH was significant only in women aged 25-34 years, but not in older women, possibly as other risk factors become more important as women age. One of the most concerning findings in this study ... is that only 11% had ideal CVH based on a combination of behavioral and health factors. As cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women, we must do a better job of optimizing [their] cardiovascular health. Clinicians need to focus on optimizing cardiovascular health for all of their midlife patients, whether or not they experienced early menarche!”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues, as well as Dr. Shifren and Dr. Grodeski, had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gross-Sawicka has received funding from Abbott and Novartis.

“Increases in age at menarche are significantly associated with increases in cardiovascular health among women,” reported Yi Zheng, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mr. Zheng and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 20,447 women aged 18 or older using data from a nationally representative sample of the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examinations Survey (NHANES). In all, 2,292 (11.2%) were determined to have ideal cardiovascular health (CVH).

Early menarche was confirmed to be related to increases in body mass index and greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, consistent with earlier studies, the authors confirmed. Those with nonideal CVH were more likely to have reported early menarche; those with ideal CVH were not only younger, but they also had college or graduate level education or above and higher poverty income ratio. Those with ideal CVH were also less likely to be to be of non-Hispanic Black heritage or to have been previously married.
 

BMI may be the missing link between early menarche and CVH

Unlike previous studies, the researchers found no significant link between early menarche and blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking, physical activity, or diet using fully adjusted model data, leading them to conclude that “the associations between early menarche and CVH might be mainly driven by its associations with BMI.”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues suggested that future studies should evaluate the causal relationships between age at menarche and BMI and whether genetic factors and childhood lifestyle predispose women to early menarche and obesity.

“Our findings further highlighted that age at menarche may be used to identify high-risk population[s] and to guide targeted preventions to maintain and improve CVH,” the authors noted. Although they cited several strengths and limitations of the study, they emphasized that the wide use of Life’s Simple 7 factors (blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose levels, smoking, BMI, physical activity, and diet) to measure CVH should “only be regarded as a surrogate construct, and future efforts are needed to better characterize CVH,” they cautioned.
 

The findings offer an opportunity to more closely track CVH in racial and ethnic groups

In a separate editorial, Ewa M. Gross-Sawicka, MD, PhD, and Eiran Z. Gorodeski, MD, MPH, both of the Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, observed: “That the authors found African American women had the lowest overall CVH scores, even after adjusting for differences, highlights the importance of beginning cardiovascular health education earlier, especially for those in certain racial and ethnic groups.”

Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski also raised several key questions that warrant further research: “1) Why do women who experience late menarche have improved cardiovascular health while those who experience early menarche have reduced cardiovascular health? 2) Why do the ‘beneficial’ effects of late menarche on CVH last 10 years longer than the ‘detrimental’ effects of early menarche? 3) Since both early and late menarche are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, are women who experience menarche at an older age more cognizant of the cardiovascular risks compared with younger women and adjust their CVH accordingly?”

A key point also worth further consideration: “It is unclear whether age at menarche is directly associated with CVH, or if this relationship is mediated by the association of age at menarche and BMI and/or hyperglycemia,” said Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski.

In an interview, Jan Shifren, MD, director, Midlife Women’s Health Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, noted, “The principal finding is that early menarche is associated with worse cardiovascular health, which may reflect the adverse impact of obesity and glucose intolerance on CVH, as obesity also is a risk factor for early menarche. The association between early menarche and worse CVH was significant only in women aged 25-34 years, but not in older women, possibly as other risk factors become more important as women age. One of the most concerning findings in this study ... is that only 11% had ideal CVH based on a combination of behavioral and health factors. As cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women, we must do a better job of optimizing [their] cardiovascular health. Clinicians need to focus on optimizing cardiovascular health for all of their midlife patients, whether or not they experienced early menarche!”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues, as well as Dr. Shifren and Dr. Grodeski, had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gross-Sawicka has received funding from Abbott and Novartis.

“Increases in age at menarche are significantly associated with increases in cardiovascular health among women,” reported Yi Zheng, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mr. Zheng and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 20,447 women aged 18 or older using data from a nationally representative sample of the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examinations Survey (NHANES). In all, 2,292 (11.2%) were determined to have ideal cardiovascular health (CVH).

Early menarche was confirmed to be related to increases in body mass index and greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, consistent with earlier studies, the authors confirmed. Those with nonideal CVH were more likely to have reported early menarche; those with ideal CVH were not only younger, but they also had college or graduate level education or above and higher poverty income ratio. Those with ideal CVH were also less likely to be to be of non-Hispanic Black heritage or to have been previously married.
 

BMI may be the missing link between early menarche and CVH

Unlike previous studies, the researchers found no significant link between early menarche and blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking, physical activity, or diet using fully adjusted model data, leading them to conclude that “the associations between early menarche and CVH might be mainly driven by its associations with BMI.”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues suggested that future studies should evaluate the causal relationships between age at menarche and BMI and whether genetic factors and childhood lifestyle predispose women to early menarche and obesity.

“Our findings further highlighted that age at menarche may be used to identify high-risk population[s] and to guide targeted preventions to maintain and improve CVH,” the authors noted. Although they cited several strengths and limitations of the study, they emphasized that the wide use of Life’s Simple 7 factors (blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose levels, smoking, BMI, physical activity, and diet) to measure CVH should “only be regarded as a surrogate construct, and future efforts are needed to better characterize CVH,” they cautioned.
 

The findings offer an opportunity to more closely track CVH in racial and ethnic groups

In a separate editorial, Ewa M. Gross-Sawicka, MD, PhD, and Eiran Z. Gorodeski, MD, MPH, both of the Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, observed: “That the authors found African American women had the lowest overall CVH scores, even after adjusting for differences, highlights the importance of beginning cardiovascular health education earlier, especially for those in certain racial and ethnic groups.”

Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski also raised several key questions that warrant further research: “1) Why do women who experience late menarche have improved cardiovascular health while those who experience early menarche have reduced cardiovascular health? 2) Why do the ‘beneficial’ effects of late menarche on CVH last 10 years longer than the ‘detrimental’ effects of early menarche? 3) Since both early and late menarche are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, are women who experience menarche at an older age more cognizant of the cardiovascular risks compared with younger women and adjust their CVH accordingly?”

A key point also worth further consideration: “It is unclear whether age at menarche is directly associated with CVH, or if this relationship is mediated by the association of age at menarche and BMI and/or hyperglycemia,” said Dr. Gross-Sawicka and Dr. Gorodeski.

In an interview, Jan Shifren, MD, director, Midlife Women’s Health Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, noted, “The principal finding is that early menarche is associated with worse cardiovascular health, which may reflect the adverse impact of obesity and glucose intolerance on CVH, as obesity also is a risk factor for early menarche. The association between early menarche and worse CVH was significant only in women aged 25-34 years, but not in older women, possibly as other risk factors become more important as women age. One of the most concerning findings in this study ... is that only 11% had ideal CVH based on a combination of behavioral and health factors. As cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women, we must do a better job of optimizing [their] cardiovascular health. Clinicians need to focus on optimizing cardiovascular health for all of their midlife patients, whether or not they experienced early menarche!”

Mr. Zheng and colleagues, as well as Dr. Shifren and Dr. Grodeski, had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gross-Sawicka has received funding from Abbott and Novartis.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

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.

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Birth rates for women who underwent assisted reproduction using fresh donor oocytes were significantly higher than for women who used cryopreserved-thawed embryos, based on data from more than 33,000 women.

Cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in donor oocyte cycles have gained in popularity in recent years for reasons including “convenience, elimination of the need for synchronization between donor and recipient cycles, and/or increasing utilization of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy,” wrote Iris G. Insogna, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.“ However, to date, no comparison of pregnancy outcomes has been made between transfers of fresh embryos and cryopreserved-thawed embryos derived exclusively from fresh donor oocytes,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers identified 33,863 women who underwent IVF cycles using freshly retrieved oocytes with a total of 51,942 embryo transfer cycles; 15,308 fresh embryo transfer cycles, and 36,634 cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

Overall, the live birth rate was 56.6% for cycles involving fresh donor oocytes compared to 44.0% for cycles with cryopreserved-thawed embryos, with an adjusted relative risk of 1.42 after the researchers controlled for donor age, day of embryo transfer, use of gestational carrier, and assisted hatching. Demographics were similar between women who received fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryos including median age (42 years for both), gravidity (1 for both), parity (0 vs. 1), and body mass index (24.5 vs. 24.4 kg/m²).

Clinical pregnancy rates for women with fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers were 66.7% and 54.2%, respectively, and miscarriage rates were approximately 9% for both groups.

The average number of embryos transferred was similar between the groups, and blastocysts were transferred in 92.4% and 96.5% of fresh embryo and cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles, respectively.

The finding that, in cycles using fresh donor oocytes, fresh embryo transfer yielded higher birth rates than transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer “was in contrast to previous investigations of cycles using autologous oocytes that demonstrated higher live birth rates following cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers,” the researchers noted.

Live birth rates remained higher in cases of fresh embryo transfer when preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) was performed, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on potential confounding factors in the donor population, such as age, ethnicity, BMI, and smoking status, the researchers said. However, the results have implications for clinical practice by providing informed counseling information, given the significantly greater complexity of preparing a fresh transfer of an embryo from a fresh donor oocyte, the researchers noted. In addition, “given the considerable financial investment, these data may influence patient decision-making regarding transferring a fresh embryo derived from a fresh donor oocyte vs. cryopreserving all embryos a priori for convenience,” they said. More data on the cost-effectiveness of fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in the study population also would help guide clinical practice, they said.
 

Prospective studies needed to confirm potential

“For women who use autologous oocytes, there is increasing evidence for improved pregnancy rates by frozen embryo transfer (FET) rather than fresh, particularly in women with good ovarian response to gonadotropins,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. The current study was important because it examined “whether the same concept applies with the use of embryos from donor oocytes,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center, in Orlando, said he was surprised by the study findings. The study “contradicts the experience in cycles using autologous oocytes,” he said. “Fresh embryo superiority remained after a subgroup analysis of first embryo transfers for fresh and frozen cycles as well as for embryos that underwent PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, typically resulting in FET cycles, although a small percentage of cycles underwent fresh embryo transfer), yielding no difference to non-PGT-A fresh cycles. This reinforces the prior evidence for lack of improvement following PGT-A in women less than age 35 years,” he noted.

“Coincidentally, the same findings were discovered using the same SART [Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology] database (from 2013 to 2015), namely fresh embryo transfer from donor oocytes was more likely to result in a live birth – 55.7% versus 39.5%,” said Dr. Trolice. “An abstract presented at the 2017 ASRM annual meeting also used the SART data base (from 2003 to 2014) and demonstrated live birth rates from fresh transfer of embryos using donor oocytes were 15%-20% higher than those from frozen embryo transfers,” he noted.

“In summary, the use of fresh embryos from donor oocytes consistently appears to have superior pregnancy outcomes compared with frozen embryos; a nearly 13% absolute difference in this recent study,” said Dr. Trolice. The strengths of the study included the primary outcome of live births and the heterogeneity, with cycles taken from all participating U.S. SART clinics, Dr. Trolice noted. Limitations included the “retrospective design with the inherent risk of selection bias and the lack of information on the embryo freezing method, i.e., the older ‘slow-freeze’ or the more advanced and popular method of vitrification,” he added. “Randomized, prospective studies are needed to more accurately address this important issue,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Insogna disclosed part-time work as an assistant physician for Teladoc Health. Dr. Trolice had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Birth rates for women who underwent assisted reproduction using fresh donor oocytes were significantly higher than for women who used cryopreserved-thawed embryos, based on data from more than 33,000 women.

Cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in donor oocyte cycles have gained in popularity in recent years for reasons including “convenience, elimination of the need for synchronization between donor and recipient cycles, and/or increasing utilization of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy,” wrote Iris G. Insogna, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.“ However, to date, no comparison of pregnancy outcomes has been made between transfers of fresh embryos and cryopreserved-thawed embryos derived exclusively from fresh donor oocytes,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers identified 33,863 women who underwent IVF cycles using freshly retrieved oocytes with a total of 51,942 embryo transfer cycles; 15,308 fresh embryo transfer cycles, and 36,634 cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

Overall, the live birth rate was 56.6% for cycles involving fresh donor oocytes compared to 44.0% for cycles with cryopreserved-thawed embryos, with an adjusted relative risk of 1.42 after the researchers controlled for donor age, day of embryo transfer, use of gestational carrier, and assisted hatching. Demographics were similar between women who received fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryos including median age (42 years for both), gravidity (1 for both), parity (0 vs. 1), and body mass index (24.5 vs. 24.4 kg/m²).

Clinical pregnancy rates for women with fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers were 66.7% and 54.2%, respectively, and miscarriage rates were approximately 9% for both groups.

The average number of embryos transferred was similar between the groups, and blastocysts were transferred in 92.4% and 96.5% of fresh embryo and cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles, respectively.

The finding that, in cycles using fresh donor oocytes, fresh embryo transfer yielded higher birth rates than transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer “was in contrast to previous investigations of cycles using autologous oocytes that demonstrated higher live birth rates following cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers,” the researchers noted.

Live birth rates remained higher in cases of fresh embryo transfer when preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) was performed, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on potential confounding factors in the donor population, such as age, ethnicity, BMI, and smoking status, the researchers said. However, the results have implications for clinical practice by providing informed counseling information, given the significantly greater complexity of preparing a fresh transfer of an embryo from a fresh donor oocyte, the researchers noted. In addition, “given the considerable financial investment, these data may influence patient decision-making regarding transferring a fresh embryo derived from a fresh donor oocyte vs. cryopreserving all embryos a priori for convenience,” they said. More data on the cost-effectiveness of fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in the study population also would help guide clinical practice, they said.
 

Prospective studies needed to confirm potential

“For women who use autologous oocytes, there is increasing evidence for improved pregnancy rates by frozen embryo transfer (FET) rather than fresh, particularly in women with good ovarian response to gonadotropins,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. The current study was important because it examined “whether the same concept applies with the use of embryos from donor oocytes,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center, in Orlando, said he was surprised by the study findings. The study “contradicts the experience in cycles using autologous oocytes,” he said. “Fresh embryo superiority remained after a subgroup analysis of first embryo transfers for fresh and frozen cycles as well as for embryos that underwent PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, typically resulting in FET cycles, although a small percentage of cycles underwent fresh embryo transfer), yielding no difference to non-PGT-A fresh cycles. This reinforces the prior evidence for lack of improvement following PGT-A in women less than age 35 years,” he noted.

“Coincidentally, the same findings were discovered using the same SART [Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology] database (from 2013 to 2015), namely fresh embryo transfer from donor oocytes was more likely to result in a live birth – 55.7% versus 39.5%,” said Dr. Trolice. “An abstract presented at the 2017 ASRM annual meeting also used the SART data base (from 2003 to 2014) and demonstrated live birth rates from fresh transfer of embryos using donor oocytes were 15%-20% higher than those from frozen embryo transfers,” he noted.

“In summary, the use of fresh embryos from donor oocytes consistently appears to have superior pregnancy outcomes compared with frozen embryos; a nearly 13% absolute difference in this recent study,” said Dr. Trolice. The strengths of the study included the primary outcome of live births and the heterogeneity, with cycles taken from all participating U.S. SART clinics, Dr. Trolice noted. Limitations included the “retrospective design with the inherent risk of selection bias and the lack of information on the embryo freezing method, i.e., the older ‘slow-freeze’ or the more advanced and popular method of vitrification,” he added. “Randomized, prospective studies are needed to more accurately address this important issue,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Insogna disclosed part-time work as an assistant physician for Teladoc Health. Dr. Trolice had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Birth rates for women who underwent assisted reproduction using fresh donor oocytes were significantly higher than for women who used cryopreserved-thawed embryos, based on data from more than 33,000 women.

Cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in donor oocyte cycles have gained in popularity in recent years for reasons including “convenience, elimination of the need for synchronization between donor and recipient cycles, and/or increasing utilization of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy,” wrote Iris G. Insogna, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.“ However, to date, no comparison of pregnancy outcomes has been made between transfers of fresh embryos and cryopreserved-thawed embryos derived exclusively from fresh donor oocytes,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers identified 33,863 women who underwent IVF cycles using freshly retrieved oocytes with a total of 51,942 embryo transfer cycles; 15,308 fresh embryo transfer cycles, and 36,634 cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

Overall, the live birth rate was 56.6% for cycles involving fresh donor oocytes compared to 44.0% for cycles with cryopreserved-thawed embryos, with an adjusted relative risk of 1.42 after the researchers controlled for donor age, day of embryo transfer, use of gestational carrier, and assisted hatching. Demographics were similar between women who received fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryos including median age (42 years for both), gravidity (1 for both), parity (0 vs. 1), and body mass index (24.5 vs. 24.4 kg/m²).

Clinical pregnancy rates for women with fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers were 66.7% and 54.2%, respectively, and miscarriage rates were approximately 9% for both groups.

The average number of embryos transferred was similar between the groups, and blastocysts were transferred in 92.4% and 96.5% of fresh embryo and cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer cycles, respectively.

The finding that, in cycles using fresh donor oocytes, fresh embryo transfer yielded higher birth rates than transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer “was in contrast to previous investigations of cycles using autologous oocytes that demonstrated higher live birth rates following cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers,” the researchers noted.

Live birth rates remained higher in cases of fresh embryo transfer when preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) was performed, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on potential confounding factors in the donor population, such as age, ethnicity, BMI, and smoking status, the researchers said. However, the results have implications for clinical practice by providing informed counseling information, given the significantly greater complexity of preparing a fresh transfer of an embryo from a fresh donor oocyte, the researchers noted. In addition, “given the considerable financial investment, these data may influence patient decision-making regarding transferring a fresh embryo derived from a fresh donor oocyte vs. cryopreserving all embryos a priori for convenience,” they said. More data on the cost-effectiveness of fresh vs. cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in the study population also would help guide clinical practice, they said.
 

Prospective studies needed to confirm potential

“For women who use autologous oocytes, there is increasing evidence for improved pregnancy rates by frozen embryo transfer (FET) rather than fresh, particularly in women with good ovarian response to gonadotropins,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. The current study was important because it examined “whether the same concept applies with the use of embryos from donor oocytes,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center, in Orlando, said he was surprised by the study findings. The study “contradicts the experience in cycles using autologous oocytes,” he said. “Fresh embryo superiority remained after a subgroup analysis of first embryo transfers for fresh and frozen cycles as well as for embryos that underwent PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, typically resulting in FET cycles, although a small percentage of cycles underwent fresh embryo transfer), yielding no difference to non-PGT-A fresh cycles. This reinforces the prior evidence for lack of improvement following PGT-A in women less than age 35 years,” he noted.

“Coincidentally, the same findings were discovered using the same SART [Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology] database (from 2013 to 2015), namely fresh embryo transfer from donor oocytes was more likely to result in a live birth – 55.7% versus 39.5%,” said Dr. Trolice. “An abstract presented at the 2017 ASRM annual meeting also used the SART data base (from 2003 to 2014) and demonstrated live birth rates from fresh transfer of embryos using donor oocytes were 15%-20% higher than those from frozen embryo transfers,” he noted.

“In summary, the use of fresh embryos from donor oocytes consistently appears to have superior pregnancy outcomes compared with frozen embryos; a nearly 13% absolute difference in this recent study,” said Dr. Trolice. The strengths of the study included the primary outcome of live births and the heterogeneity, with cycles taken from all participating U.S. SART clinics, Dr. Trolice noted. Limitations included the “retrospective design with the inherent risk of selection bias and the lack of information on the embryo freezing method, i.e., the older ‘slow-freeze’ or the more advanced and popular method of vitrification,” he added. “Randomized, prospective studies are needed to more accurately address this important issue,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Insogna disclosed part-time work as an assistant physician for Teladoc Health. Dr. Trolice had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.