MDedge ObGyn

In reproductive medicine, there are few, if any, more pressing concerns from our patients than the biological clock, i.e., ovarian aging. While addressing this issue with women can be challenging, particularly for those who are anxious regarding their advanced maternal age, gynecologists must possess a thorough understanding of available diagnostic testing. This article will review the various methods to assess ovarian age and appropriate clinical management.

Ovarian reserve tests

Ovarian reserve represents the quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is defined by the woman’s chronologic age, which is the greatest predictor of fertility. From a peak monthly fecundity rate at age 30 of approximately 20%, the slow and steady decline of fertility ensues. Quantity represents the number of oocytes remaining from the original cohort.

Ovarian reserve is most provocatively gauged by the follicle response to gonadotropin stimulation, typically during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle.

Several biomarkers have been used to assess ovarian age. These include FSH, estradiol, and inhibin B. In general, these tests are more specific than sensitive, i.e., “normal” results do not necessarily exclude decreased ovarian reserve. But as a screening tool for decreased ovarian reserve, the most important factor is the positive predictive value (PPV). Statistically, in a population of women at low risk for decreased ovarian reserve, the PPV will be low despite sensitivity and specificity.

While inhibin B is a more direct and earlier reflection of ovarian function produced by granulose cells, assays lacked consistent results and a standardized cut-off value. FSH is the last biomarker to be affected by decreased ovarian reserve so elevations reflect more “end-stage” ovarian aging.

Additional tests for decreased ovarian reserve include antral follicle count (AFC) and the clomiphene citrate challenge test (CCCT). AFC is determined by using transvaginal ultrasound to count the number of follicular cysts in the 2- to 9-mm range. While AFC can be performed on any day of the cycle, the ovary is most optimally measured on menses because of less cystic activity. A combined AFC of 3-6 is considered severe decreased ovarian reserve. The CCCT involves prescribing clomiphene citrate 100 mg daily from cycle day 5-9 to measure FSH on cycle days 3 and 10. An FSH level greater than 10 IU/L or any elevation in FSH following CCCT is considered decreased ovarian reserve.

FSH had been the standard but levels may dramatically change monthly, making testing only valuable if it is elevated. Consequently, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and AFC are considered the most useful tools to determine decreased ovarian reserve because of less variability. The other distinct advantage is the ability to obtain AMH any day in the menstrual cycle. Recently, in women undergoing IVF, AMH was superior to FSH in predicting live birth, particularly when their values were discordant (J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:60). While there is no established consensus, the ideal interval for repeating AMH appears to be approximately 3 months (Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:65S-6S).
 

AMH

AMH is expressed in the embryo at 8 weeks by the Sertoli cells of the testis causing the female reproductive internal system (müllerian) to regress. Without AMH expression, the müllerian system remains and the male (woffian duct system) regresses. The discovery of AMH production by the granulosa cells of the ovary launched a new era in the evaluation and management of infertile women. First reported in Fertility & Sterility in 2002 as a much earlier potential marker of ovarian aging, low levels of AMH predict a lower number of eggs in IVF.

AMH levels are produced in the embryo at 36 weeks’ gestation and increase up to the age of 24.5 years, decreasing thereafter. AMH reflects primordial (early) follicles that are FSH independent. The median AMH level decreases per year according to age groups are: 0.25 ng/mL in ages 26-30; 0.2 ng/mL in ages 31-36 years; and 0.1 ng/mL above age 36. (PLOS ONE 2015 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125216).

AMH has also been studied as a potential biomarker to diagnose PCOS. While many women with PCOS have elevated AMH levels (typically greater than 3 ng/mL), there is no consensus on an AMH value that would be a criterion.

Many women, particularly those electing to defer fertility, express interest in obtaining their AMH level to consider planned oocyte cryopreservation, AKA, social egg freezing. While it is possible the results of AMH screening may compel women to electively freeze their eggs, extensive counseling on the implications and pitfalls of AMH levels is essential. Further, AMH cannot be used to accurately predict menopause.
 

Predicting outcomes

No biomarker is necessarily predictive of pregnancy but more a gauge of gonadotropin dosage to induce multifollicular development. AMH is a great predictor of oocyte yield with IVF (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26[7]:383-9). However, in women older than 35 undergoing IVF, low AMH levels have been shown to reduce pregnancy rates (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10:24–30). During IVF cycle attempts, an ultra-low AMH (≤0.4) resulted in high cancellation rates, reduced the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos developed, and lowered pregnancy rates in women of advanced reproductive age.

Alternatively, a study of 750 women who were not infertile and were actively trying to conceive demonstrated no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76).

A special consideration is for cancer patients who are status postgonadotoxic chemotherapy. Their oocyte attrition can be accelerated and AMH levels can become profoundly low. In those patients, current data suggest there is a modest recovery of postchemotherapy AMH levels up to 1 year. Further, oocyte yield following stimulation may be higher than expected despite a poor AMH level.
 

Conclusion

Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, AFC, and AMH. There is no current evidence that AMH levels should be used to exclude patients from undergoing IVF or to recommend egg donation. Random screening of AMH levels in a low-risk population for decreased ovarian reserve may result in unnecessary alarm.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE - The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

In reproductive medicine, there are few, if any, more pressing concerns from our patients than the biological clock, i.e., ovarian aging. While addressing this issue with women can be challenging, particularly for those who are anxious regarding their advanced maternal age, gynecologists must possess a thorough understanding of available diagnostic testing. This article will review the various methods to assess ovarian age and appropriate clinical management.

Ovarian reserve tests

Ovarian reserve represents the quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is defined by the woman’s chronologic age, which is the greatest predictor of fertility. From a peak monthly fecundity rate at age 30 of approximately 20%, the slow and steady decline of fertility ensues. Quantity represents the number of oocytes remaining from the original cohort.

Ovarian reserve is most provocatively gauged by the follicle response to gonadotropin stimulation, typically during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle.

Several biomarkers have been used to assess ovarian age. These include FSH, estradiol, and inhibin B. In general, these tests are more specific than sensitive, i.e., “normal” results do not necessarily exclude decreased ovarian reserve. But as a screening tool for decreased ovarian reserve, the most important factor is the positive predictive value (PPV). Statistically, in a population of women at low risk for decreased ovarian reserve, the PPV will be low despite sensitivity and specificity.

While inhibin B is a more direct and earlier reflection of ovarian function produced by granulose cells, assays lacked consistent results and a standardized cut-off value. FSH is the last biomarker to be affected by decreased ovarian reserve so elevations reflect more “end-stage” ovarian aging.

Additional tests for decreased ovarian reserve include antral follicle count (AFC) and the clomiphene citrate challenge test (CCCT). AFC is determined by using transvaginal ultrasound to count the number of follicular cysts in the 2- to 9-mm range. While AFC can be performed on any day of the cycle, the ovary is most optimally measured on menses because of less cystic activity. A combined AFC of 3-6 is considered severe decreased ovarian reserve. The CCCT involves prescribing clomiphene citrate 100 mg daily from cycle day 5-9 to measure FSH on cycle days 3 and 10. An FSH level greater than 10 IU/L or any elevation in FSH following CCCT is considered decreased ovarian reserve.

FSH had been the standard but levels may dramatically change monthly, making testing only valuable if it is elevated. Consequently, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and AFC are considered the most useful tools to determine decreased ovarian reserve because of less variability. The other distinct advantage is the ability to obtain AMH any day in the menstrual cycle. Recently, in women undergoing IVF, AMH was superior to FSH in predicting live birth, particularly when their values were discordant (J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:60). While there is no established consensus, the ideal interval for repeating AMH appears to be approximately 3 months (Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:65S-6S).
 

AMH

AMH is expressed in the embryo at 8 weeks by the Sertoli cells of the testis causing the female reproductive internal system (müllerian) to regress. Without AMH expression, the müllerian system remains and the male (woffian duct system) regresses. The discovery of AMH production by the granulosa cells of the ovary launched a new era in the evaluation and management of infertile women. First reported in Fertility & Sterility in 2002 as a much earlier potential marker of ovarian aging, low levels of AMH predict a lower number of eggs in IVF.

AMH levels are produced in the embryo at 36 weeks’ gestation and increase up to the age of 24.5 years, decreasing thereafter. AMH reflects primordial (early) follicles that are FSH independent. The median AMH level decreases per year according to age groups are: 0.25 ng/mL in ages 26-30; 0.2 ng/mL in ages 31-36 years; and 0.1 ng/mL above age 36. (PLOS ONE 2015 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125216).

AMH has also been studied as a potential biomarker to diagnose PCOS. While many women with PCOS have elevated AMH levels (typically greater than 3 ng/mL), there is no consensus on an AMH value that would be a criterion.

Many women, particularly those electing to defer fertility, express interest in obtaining their AMH level to consider planned oocyte cryopreservation, AKA, social egg freezing. While it is possible the results of AMH screening may compel women to electively freeze their eggs, extensive counseling on the implications and pitfalls of AMH levels is essential. Further, AMH cannot be used to accurately predict menopause.
 

Predicting outcomes

No biomarker is necessarily predictive of pregnancy but more a gauge of gonadotropin dosage to induce multifollicular development. AMH is a great predictor of oocyte yield with IVF (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26[7]:383-9). However, in women older than 35 undergoing IVF, low AMH levels have been shown to reduce pregnancy rates (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10:24–30). During IVF cycle attempts, an ultra-low AMH (≤0.4) resulted in high cancellation rates, reduced the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos developed, and lowered pregnancy rates in women of advanced reproductive age.

Alternatively, a study of 750 women who were not infertile and were actively trying to conceive demonstrated no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76).

A special consideration is for cancer patients who are status postgonadotoxic chemotherapy. Their oocyte attrition can be accelerated and AMH levels can become profoundly low. In those patients, current data suggest there is a modest recovery of postchemotherapy AMH levels up to 1 year. Further, oocyte yield following stimulation may be higher than expected despite a poor AMH level.
 

Conclusion

Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, AFC, and AMH. There is no current evidence that AMH levels should be used to exclude patients from undergoing IVF or to recommend egg donation. Random screening of AMH levels in a low-risk population for decreased ovarian reserve may result in unnecessary alarm.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE - The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

In reproductive medicine, there are few, if any, more pressing concerns from our patients than the biological clock, i.e., ovarian aging. While addressing this issue with women can be challenging, particularly for those who are anxious regarding their advanced maternal age, gynecologists must possess a thorough understanding of available diagnostic testing. This article will review the various methods to assess ovarian age and appropriate clinical management.

Ovarian reserve tests

Ovarian reserve represents the quality and quantity of oocytes. The former is defined by the woman’s chronologic age, which is the greatest predictor of fertility. From a peak monthly fecundity rate at age 30 of approximately 20%, the slow and steady decline of fertility ensues. Quantity represents the number of oocytes remaining from the original cohort.

Ovarian reserve is most provocatively gauged by the follicle response to gonadotropin stimulation, typically during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle.

Several biomarkers have been used to assess ovarian age. These include FSH, estradiol, and inhibin B. In general, these tests are more specific than sensitive, i.e., “normal” results do not necessarily exclude decreased ovarian reserve. But as a screening tool for decreased ovarian reserve, the most important factor is the positive predictive value (PPV). Statistically, in a population of women at low risk for decreased ovarian reserve, the PPV will be low despite sensitivity and specificity.

While inhibin B is a more direct and earlier reflection of ovarian function produced by granulose cells, assays lacked consistent results and a standardized cut-off value. FSH is the last biomarker to be affected by decreased ovarian reserve so elevations reflect more “end-stage” ovarian aging.

Additional tests for decreased ovarian reserve include antral follicle count (AFC) and the clomiphene citrate challenge test (CCCT). AFC is determined by using transvaginal ultrasound to count the number of follicular cysts in the 2- to 9-mm range. While AFC can be performed on any day of the cycle, the ovary is most optimally measured on menses because of less cystic activity. A combined AFC of 3-6 is considered severe decreased ovarian reserve. The CCCT involves prescribing clomiphene citrate 100 mg daily from cycle day 5-9 to measure FSH on cycle days 3 and 10. An FSH level greater than 10 IU/L or any elevation in FSH following CCCT is considered decreased ovarian reserve.

FSH had been the standard but levels may dramatically change monthly, making testing only valuable if it is elevated. Consequently, antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and AFC are considered the most useful tools to determine decreased ovarian reserve because of less variability. The other distinct advantage is the ability to obtain AMH any day in the menstrual cycle. Recently, in women undergoing IVF, AMH was superior to FSH in predicting live birth, particularly when their values were discordant (J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:60). While there is no established consensus, the ideal interval for repeating AMH appears to be approximately 3 months (Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:65S-6S).
 

AMH

AMH is expressed in the embryo at 8 weeks by the Sertoli cells of the testis causing the female reproductive internal system (müllerian) to regress. Without AMH expression, the müllerian system remains and the male (woffian duct system) regresses. The discovery of AMH production by the granulosa cells of the ovary launched a new era in the evaluation and management of infertile women. First reported in Fertility & Sterility in 2002 as a much earlier potential marker of ovarian aging, low levels of AMH predict a lower number of eggs in IVF.

AMH levels are produced in the embryo at 36 weeks’ gestation and increase up to the age of 24.5 years, decreasing thereafter. AMH reflects primordial (early) follicles that are FSH independent. The median AMH level decreases per year according to age groups are: 0.25 ng/mL in ages 26-30; 0.2 ng/mL in ages 31-36 years; and 0.1 ng/mL above age 36. (PLOS ONE 2015 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125216).

AMH has also been studied as a potential biomarker to diagnose PCOS. While many women with PCOS have elevated AMH levels (typically greater than 3 ng/mL), there is no consensus on an AMH value that would be a criterion.

Many women, particularly those electing to defer fertility, express interest in obtaining their AMH level to consider planned oocyte cryopreservation, AKA, social egg freezing. While it is possible the results of AMH screening may compel women to electively freeze their eggs, extensive counseling on the implications and pitfalls of AMH levels is essential. Further, AMH cannot be used to accurately predict menopause.
 

Predicting outcomes

No biomarker is necessarily predictive of pregnancy but more a gauge of gonadotropin dosage to induce multifollicular development. AMH is a great predictor of oocyte yield with IVF (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26[7]:383-9). However, in women older than 35 undergoing IVF, low AMH levels have been shown to reduce pregnancy rates (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10:24–30). During IVF cycle attempts, an ultra-low AMH (≤0.4) resulted in high cancellation rates, reduced the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos developed, and lowered pregnancy rates in women of advanced reproductive age.

Alternatively, a study of 750 women who were not infertile and were actively trying to conceive demonstrated no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76).

A special consideration is for cancer patients who are status postgonadotoxic chemotherapy. Their oocyte attrition can be accelerated and AMH levels can become profoundly low. In those patients, current data suggest there is a modest recovery of postchemotherapy AMH levels up to 1 year. Further, oocyte yield following stimulation may be higher than expected despite a poor AMH level.
 

Conclusion

Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, AFC, and AMH. There is no current evidence that AMH levels should be used to exclude patients from undergoing IVF or to recommend egg donation. Random screening of AMH levels in a low-risk population for decreased ovarian reserve may result in unnecessary alarm.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE - The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

Vidyard Video

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

• Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery
• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks   

Vidyard Video

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

• Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery
• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks   

Vidyard Video

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

• Maintaining and reclaiming hemostasis in laparoscopic surgery
• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks   

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.

“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.

It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
 

Reassurance, questions, and concerns

“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.

And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.

“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.

The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
 

Testing at 3 centers

To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.

Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.

Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.

Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.

Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.

In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
 

Protecting infants

The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”

Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.

The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.

jremaly@mdedge.com

No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.

“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.

It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
 

Reassurance, questions, and concerns

“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.

And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.

“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.

The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
 

Testing at 3 centers

To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.

Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.

Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.

Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.

Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.

In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
 

Protecting infants

The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”

Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.

The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.

jremaly@mdedge.com

No maternal viremia, placental infection, or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during a biorepository study that included 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

But SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred relatively inefficiently across the placenta in the third trimester, which suggests that neonates whose mothers had COVID-19 during pregnancy still may be vulnerable to the virus, the investigators said. Antibodies may transfer more efficiently with second-trimester infections, data from another study indicate.

“These findings suggest that, although low rates of maternal viremia and patterns of placental SARS-CoV-2 receptor distribution may underlie the rarity of vertical transmission, reduced transplacental transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may leave neonates at risk for infection,” wrote study author Andrea G. Edlow, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Dr. Edlow is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

In another study published in Cell, the research team found that, unlike with third trimester infections, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies transferred efficiently after infection in the second trimester. “Understanding how de novo antibody transfer varies by trimester may point to critical windows in pregnancy that may be most desirable for induction of antibodies through vaccination to optimize protection for both the mother and her infant,” they wrote.

It is unclear whether antibodies that are elicited by recently authorized vaccines will transfer differently than those elicited by natural infection.
 

Reassurance, questions, and concerns

“Although it is not known whether the inefficient transplacental transfer of antibodies ... will also extend to antibodies elicited by future SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, it underscores the susceptibility of infants,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA Network Open study.

And while the lack of vertical disease transmission in this study is reassuring, more research is needed, according to the director of a federal institute that helped fund the research.

“This study provides some reassurance that SARS-CoV-2 infections during the third trimester are unlikely to pass through the placenta to the fetus, but more research needs to be done to confirm this finding,” said Diana W. Bianchi, MD, director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in a news release.

The study authors theorize that the low incidence of maternal viremia and nonoverlapping expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the placenta may protect against placental infection and vertical transmission.
 

Testing at 3 centers

To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids and the transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, Dr. Edlow and collaborators enrolled 127 pregnant women at three tertiary care centers in Boston between April 2 and June 13, 2020. Follow-up occurred through July 10. Researchers tested neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab at age 24 hours.

Of 64 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 36% were asymptomatic, 34% had mild disease, 11% had moderate disease, 16% had severe disease, and 3% had critical disease. Viral load analyses did not detect viremia in maternal or cord blood, and there was no evidence of vertical transmission.

Transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza antibodies The average cord-to-maternal antibody ratio was 0.72 for anti–receptor binding domain IgG and 0.74 for antinucleocapsid, whereas the ratio for anti-influenza antibodies was 1.44. The expected cord-to-maternal antibody ratio is approximately 1.5 for pathogens such as pertussis, influenza, and measles, the authors noted.

Among participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 35-week intrauterine fetal demise occurred in an asymptomatic woman, and 22-week neonatal demise secondary to extreme prematurity in the setting of abruption and preterm labor occurred in a symptomatic patient.

Maternal disease severity was significantly associated with detectable respiratory viral load. In addition, disease severity was positively correlated with serum concentration of C-reactive protein and ALT, and negatively correlated with white blood cell count.

In the Cell study that further examined antibody transfer, the investigators focused on maternal and cord blood plasma samples from 22 mother-cord dyads with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and 34 uninfected mother-neonate dyads, as well as a second trimester cohort of 29 mother-neonate dyads and a third trimester validation cohort of 28 mother-neonate dyads.
 

Protecting infants

The results support “previous studies that have found that, while intrauterine transmission is possible, it is not common,” Dr. Jamieson and Dr. Rasmussen noted. “Most viral infections can be transmitted transplacentally; however, why some viruses are transmitted relatively easily across the placenta (e.g., HIV, Zika, herpes simplex virus), while others, such as influenza, are transmitted rarely is not well understood.”

Data indicate that infants are at higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with older children. Nonetheless, research suggests that strict hygiene measures can protect infants born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they added.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; a gift from Mark, Lisa, and Enid Schwartz; and by the Massachusetts General Hospital department of pathology Vickery-Colvin Award and other nonprofit groups. Dr. Edlow, Dr. Jamieson, and Dr. Rasmussen had no conflict of interest disclosures.

The coauthors of both studies disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies, grants from foundations and government agencies, a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and author royalties from publishers.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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