MDedge ObGyn

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

bjancin@mdedge.com

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

bjancin@mdedge.com

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

bjancin@mdedge.com

Vidyard Video

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

• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal
• A clitoral cyst of 'epidermal' proportions

Vidyard Video

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

• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal
• A clitoral cyst of 'epidermal' proportions

Vidyard Video

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

• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal
• A clitoral cyst of 'epidermal' proportions

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

The Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) announced Oct. 21 that it is investigating data received on the death of a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.

In an email sent to Medscape Medical News, the agency states that it was formally informed of the death on October 19. It has already received data regarding the investigation of the case, which is now being conducted by the Brazilian International Security Assessment Committee.

The identity of the volunteer and cause of death have not yet been confirmed by any official source linked to the study. In the email, Anvisa reiterated that “according to national and international regulations on good clinical practices, data on clinical research volunteers must be kept confidential, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, human dignity, and protection of participants.”

A report in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, however, states that the patient who died is a 28-year-old doctor, recently graduated, who worked on the front line of combating COVID-19 in three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro. He reportedly died Oct. 15 due to complications from COVID-19. The newspaper report said he received a dose of the AZDI222 vaccine in late July. Due to the study design, it is impossible to know whether the volunteer received the vaccine or placebo.

It is imperative to wait for the results of the investigations, said Sergio Cimerman, MD, the scientific coordinator of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), because death is possible during any vaccine trial, even more so in cases in which the final goal is to immunize the population in record time.

“It is precisely the phase 3 study that assesses efficacy and safety so that the vaccine can be used for the entire population. We cannot let ourselves lose hope, and we must move forward, as safely as possible, in search of an ideal vaccine,” said Cimerman, who works at the Instituto de Infectologia Emílio Ribas and is also an advisor to the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

This article was translated and adapted from the Portuguese edition of Medscape.

While the spring peak of COVID-19 was tough and traumatic for many residents and interns in a New York City health system, the experience may have accelerated their patient communication skills regarding difficult goals-of-care discussions, results of a recent survey suggest.

Breaking bad news was an everyday or every-other-day occurrence at the peak of the pandemic for nearly all of 50 of the trainees surveyed, who had worked at hospitals affiliated with the internal medicine residency program at the at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai from March to June 2020.

However, trainees became significantly more comfortable and fluent in goals-of-care discussions during the pandemic, according to Patrick Tobin-Schnittger, MBBS, a third-year internal medicine resident in the Mount Sinai program.

“COVID-19 has obviously made a huge impact on the world, but I think it’s also made a huge impact on a whole generation of junior doctors,” said Dr. Tobin-Schnittger, who presented the findings in a late-breaking abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting, held virtually this year.

“It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future as that generation matures, and I think one of the things is that we’re a lot more comfortable with end-of-life care,” he said in an interview conducted during the conference.

Nevertheless, coping with death may still be a challenge for many residents, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger. In the survey, internal medicine residents who had rarely encountered patient deaths suddenly found themselves experiencing deaths weekly, with more than one in five saying they were encountering it every day.

When asked to self-rate themselves according to Bugen’s Coping With Death scale, most participants had scores that suggested their ability to cope was suboptimal, the researcher said.

To help trainees cope with local COVID-19 surges, internal medicine residency programs should be implementing “breaking bad news” workshops and educating house staff on resilience in times of crisis, especially if it can be done virtually, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger.

“That could be done pretty quickly, and it could be done remotely so people could practice this from home,” he explained. “They wouldn’t even need to congregate in a big room.”

As a “mini-surge” of COVID-19 cases hits the United States, teaching self-care and coping techniques may also be important, said Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, director of critical care services at Northwell Health in New York City.

SOURCE: Tobin-Schnittger P. CHEST 2020. Late-breaking abstract. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.040.

While the spring peak of COVID-19 was tough and traumatic for many residents and interns in a New York City health system, the experience may have accelerated their patient communication skills regarding difficult goals-of-care discussions, results of a recent survey suggest.

Breaking bad news was an everyday or every-other-day occurrence at the peak of the pandemic for nearly all of 50 of the trainees surveyed, who had worked at hospitals affiliated with the internal medicine residency program at the at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai from March to June 2020.

However, trainees became significantly more comfortable and fluent in goals-of-care discussions during the pandemic, according to Patrick Tobin-Schnittger, MBBS, a third-year internal medicine resident in the Mount Sinai program.

“COVID-19 has obviously made a huge impact on the world, but I think it’s also made a huge impact on a whole generation of junior doctors,” said Dr. Tobin-Schnittger, who presented the findings in a late-breaking abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting, held virtually this year.

“It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future as that generation matures, and I think one of the things is that we’re a lot more comfortable with end-of-life care,” he said in an interview conducted during the conference.

Nevertheless, coping with death may still be a challenge for many residents, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger. In the survey, internal medicine residents who had rarely encountered patient deaths suddenly found themselves experiencing deaths weekly, with more than one in five saying they were encountering it every day.

When asked to self-rate themselves according to Bugen’s Coping With Death scale, most participants had scores that suggested their ability to cope was suboptimal, the researcher said.

To help trainees cope with local COVID-19 surges, internal medicine residency programs should be implementing “breaking bad news” workshops and educating house staff on resilience in times of crisis, especially if it can be done virtually, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger.

“That could be done pretty quickly, and it could be done remotely so people could practice this from home,” he explained. “They wouldn’t even need to congregate in a big room.”

As a “mini-surge” of COVID-19 cases hits the United States, teaching self-care and coping techniques may also be important, said Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, director of critical care services at Northwell Health in New York City.

SOURCE: Tobin-Schnittger P. CHEST 2020. Late-breaking abstract. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.040.

While the spring peak of COVID-19 was tough and traumatic for many residents and interns in a New York City health system, the experience may have accelerated their patient communication skills regarding difficult goals-of-care discussions, results of a recent survey suggest.

Breaking bad news was an everyday or every-other-day occurrence at the peak of the pandemic for nearly all of 50 of the trainees surveyed, who had worked at hospitals affiliated with the internal medicine residency program at the at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai from March to June 2020.

However, trainees became significantly more comfortable and fluent in goals-of-care discussions during the pandemic, according to Patrick Tobin-Schnittger, MBBS, a third-year internal medicine resident in the Mount Sinai program.

“COVID-19 has obviously made a huge impact on the world, but I think it’s also made a huge impact on a whole generation of junior doctors,” said Dr. Tobin-Schnittger, who presented the findings in a late-breaking abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting, held virtually this year.

“It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future as that generation matures, and I think one of the things is that we’re a lot more comfortable with end-of-life care,” he said in an interview conducted during the conference.

Nevertheless, coping with death may still be a challenge for many residents, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger. In the survey, internal medicine residents who had rarely encountered patient deaths suddenly found themselves experiencing deaths weekly, with more than one in five saying they were encountering it every day.

When asked to self-rate themselves according to Bugen’s Coping With Death scale, most participants had scores that suggested their ability to cope was suboptimal, the researcher said.

To help trainees cope with local COVID-19 surges, internal medicine residency programs should be implementing “breaking bad news” workshops and educating house staff on resilience in times of crisis, especially if it can be done virtually, according to Dr. Tobin-Schnittger.

“That could be done pretty quickly, and it could be done remotely so people could practice this from home,” he explained. “They wouldn’t even need to congregate in a big room.”

As a “mini-surge” of COVID-19 cases hits the United States, teaching self-care and coping techniques may also be important, said Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, director of critical care services at Northwell Health in New York City.

SOURCE: Tobin-Schnittger P. CHEST 2020. Late-breaking abstract. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.040.

A mini-sponge tamponade device controlled postpartum hemorrhage within 1 minute of placement, according to data from a study of nine women.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide; however, “nearly all of these deaths could be prevented by timely and appropriate management,” wrote Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. Other strategies including use of sterile gauze, inflated Foley catheters, condom catheters, and silicone obstetric balloons, have been tried in the management of postpartum hemorrhage, but are not ideal, the researchers said.

The investigators adapted a mini-sponge device originally designed for trauma and conducted a study of a prototype between May 20 and June 12, 2019, at a single site in Zambia.

“To adapt the mini-sponge device for use in the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage, we developed an obstetric applicator for transcervical placement using a digital vaginal route,” the researchers explained. The sponges are made of the same material used in standard surgical sponges and approved for use inside the uterus and vagina, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the investigators assessed placement, removal, and preliminary efficacy of the device. Eligible patients were women aged 16 years and older who experienced postpartum hemorrhage with an estimated blood loss of 500 mL or more because of atony after vaginal delivery.

The device was successfully placed in nine patients, and bleeding resolved within 1 minute. “For all participants, bleeding stopped in less than 1 minute, did not recur, and required no further treatment,” the researchers said.

The average time to device placement was 62 seconds. The sponges were left in place from 0.5 hours to 14 hours with an average of 1 hour, and patients were monitored with physical, visual, and ultrasound to confirm the cessation of bleeding.
 

Evidence of safety

No device-related adverse events were reported, and patients remained afebrile while using the device. The average age of the patients was 29 years; three had a history of anemia and four were living with HIV. One patient received a blood transfusion during labor prior to hemorrhage.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, the low threshold for diagnosing postpartum hemorrhage, and use of estimated blood loss, which is less precise than quantitative blood loss assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of the mini-sponge tamponade to treat atonic postpartum hemorrhage, they said.

“This device is being developed to offer a low-cost, easy-to-use product that is of similar or greater efficacy than the condom uterine balloon tamponade,” needs no electricity, and could be used in low-resource areas, they said.

A larger study comparing the sponge and condom uterine balloon tamponade is planned.

“Future studies will include a larger number of participants with quantitative blood loss assessment to determine the device’s effect in managing more patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage,” the investigators noted.
 

Rigorous research needed

“Uterine atony is too often disastrous, and new safe and effective treatments for it would be welcome,” Dwight J. Rouse, MD, associate editor of obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current balloon tamponade used to treat postpartum hemorrhage can be difficult to place and require ongoing monitoring, he said.

Although the mini-sponge device showed promise, the study was not randomized or controlled, thus lacking in evidence of effectiveness, said Dr. Rouse.

“We simply know that the participants had the devices placed and most of them stopped bleeding,” he said.

The mechanism of action is sound, but more research is needed, especially in light of other examples of new technologies, such as adhesion barriers and negative pressure wound dressing systems after cesarean deliveries, that “made sense in the abstract but failed to improve outcomes when evaluated in proper randomized trials,” Dr. Rouse noted.

“Absent such trials, we will never really know the relative value of any device to treat uterine atony refractory to medical management,” he said.

Lead author Dr. Rodriguez disclosed that her institution received funding from OBSTETRX, which funded the study, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Merck. Dr. Rodriguez disclosed funding from Bayer, while Dr. Rouse had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rodriguez MI et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004135.

A mini-sponge tamponade device controlled postpartum hemorrhage within 1 minute of placement, according to data from a study of nine women.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide; however, “nearly all of these deaths could be prevented by timely and appropriate management,” wrote Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. Other strategies including use of sterile gauze, inflated Foley catheters, condom catheters, and silicone obstetric balloons, have been tried in the management of postpartum hemorrhage, but are not ideal, the researchers said.

The investigators adapted a mini-sponge device originally designed for trauma and conducted a study of a prototype between May 20 and June 12, 2019, at a single site in Zambia.

“To adapt the mini-sponge device for use in the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage, we developed an obstetric applicator for transcervical placement using a digital vaginal route,” the researchers explained. The sponges are made of the same material used in standard surgical sponges and approved for use inside the uterus and vagina, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the investigators assessed placement, removal, and preliminary efficacy of the device. Eligible patients were women aged 16 years and older who experienced postpartum hemorrhage with an estimated blood loss of 500 mL or more because of atony after vaginal delivery.

The device was successfully placed in nine patients, and bleeding resolved within 1 minute. “For all participants, bleeding stopped in less than 1 minute, did not recur, and required no further treatment,” the researchers said.

The average time to device placement was 62 seconds. The sponges were left in place from 0.5 hours to 14 hours with an average of 1 hour, and patients were monitored with physical, visual, and ultrasound to confirm the cessation of bleeding.
 

Evidence of safety

No device-related adverse events were reported, and patients remained afebrile while using the device. The average age of the patients was 29 years; three had a history of anemia and four were living with HIV. One patient received a blood transfusion during labor prior to hemorrhage.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, the low threshold for diagnosing postpartum hemorrhage, and use of estimated blood loss, which is less precise than quantitative blood loss assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of the mini-sponge tamponade to treat atonic postpartum hemorrhage, they said.

“This device is being developed to offer a low-cost, easy-to-use product that is of similar or greater efficacy than the condom uterine balloon tamponade,” needs no electricity, and could be used in low-resource areas, they said.

A larger study comparing the sponge and condom uterine balloon tamponade is planned.

“Future studies will include a larger number of participants with quantitative blood loss assessment to determine the device’s effect in managing more patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage,” the investigators noted.
 

Rigorous research needed

“Uterine atony is too often disastrous, and new safe and effective treatments for it would be welcome,” Dwight J. Rouse, MD, associate editor of obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current balloon tamponade used to treat postpartum hemorrhage can be difficult to place and require ongoing monitoring, he said.

Although the mini-sponge device showed promise, the study was not randomized or controlled, thus lacking in evidence of effectiveness, said Dr. Rouse.

“We simply know that the participants had the devices placed and most of them stopped bleeding,” he said.

The mechanism of action is sound, but more research is needed, especially in light of other examples of new technologies, such as adhesion barriers and negative pressure wound dressing systems after cesarean deliveries, that “made sense in the abstract but failed to improve outcomes when evaluated in proper randomized trials,” Dr. Rouse noted.

“Absent such trials, we will never really know the relative value of any device to treat uterine atony refractory to medical management,” he said.

Lead author Dr. Rodriguez disclosed that her institution received funding from OBSTETRX, which funded the study, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Merck. Dr. Rodriguez disclosed funding from Bayer, while Dr. Rouse had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rodriguez MI et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004135.

A mini-sponge tamponade device controlled postpartum hemorrhage within 1 minute of placement, according to data from a study of nine women.

Postpartum hemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide; however, “nearly all of these deaths could be prevented by timely and appropriate management,” wrote Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. Other strategies including use of sterile gauze, inflated Foley catheters, condom catheters, and silicone obstetric balloons, have been tried in the management of postpartum hemorrhage, but are not ideal, the researchers said.

The investigators adapted a mini-sponge device originally designed for trauma and conducted a study of a prototype between May 20 and June 12, 2019, at a single site in Zambia.

“To adapt the mini-sponge device for use in the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage, we developed an obstetric applicator for transcervical placement using a digital vaginal route,” the researchers explained. The sponges are made of the same material used in standard surgical sponges and approved for use inside the uterus and vagina, they added.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the investigators assessed placement, removal, and preliminary efficacy of the device. Eligible patients were women aged 16 years and older who experienced postpartum hemorrhage with an estimated blood loss of 500 mL or more because of atony after vaginal delivery.

The device was successfully placed in nine patients, and bleeding resolved within 1 minute. “For all participants, bleeding stopped in less than 1 minute, did not recur, and required no further treatment,” the researchers said.

The average time to device placement was 62 seconds. The sponges were left in place from 0.5 hours to 14 hours with an average of 1 hour, and patients were monitored with physical, visual, and ultrasound to confirm the cessation of bleeding.
 

Evidence of safety

No device-related adverse events were reported, and patients remained afebrile while using the device. The average age of the patients was 29 years; three had a history of anemia and four were living with HIV. One patient received a blood transfusion during labor prior to hemorrhage.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, the low threshold for diagnosing postpartum hemorrhage, and use of estimated blood loss, which is less precise than quantitative blood loss assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of the mini-sponge tamponade to treat atonic postpartum hemorrhage, they said.

“This device is being developed to offer a low-cost, easy-to-use product that is of similar or greater efficacy than the condom uterine balloon tamponade,” needs no electricity, and could be used in low-resource areas, they said.

A larger study comparing the sponge and condom uterine balloon tamponade is planned.

“Future studies will include a larger number of participants with quantitative blood loss assessment to determine the device’s effect in managing more patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage,” the investigators noted.
 

Rigorous research needed

“Uterine atony is too often disastrous, and new safe and effective treatments for it would be welcome,” Dwight J. Rouse, MD, associate editor of obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current balloon tamponade used to treat postpartum hemorrhage can be difficult to place and require ongoing monitoring, he said.

Although the mini-sponge device showed promise, the study was not randomized or controlled, thus lacking in evidence of effectiveness, said Dr. Rouse.

“We simply know that the participants had the devices placed and most of them stopped bleeding,” he said.

The mechanism of action is sound, but more research is needed, especially in light of other examples of new technologies, such as adhesion barriers and negative pressure wound dressing systems after cesarean deliveries, that “made sense in the abstract but failed to improve outcomes when evaluated in proper randomized trials,” Dr. Rouse noted.

“Absent such trials, we will never really know the relative value of any device to treat uterine atony refractory to medical management,” he said.

Lead author Dr. Rodriguez disclosed that her institution received funding from OBSTETRX, which funded the study, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Merck. Dr. Rodriguez disclosed funding from Bayer, while Dr. Rouse had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rodriguez MI et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004135.

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.