Ob.Gyn. News

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

Postpartum depression isn’t just something new mothers can get. Turns out it can affect new fathers, too, according to a new study.

Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.

But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.

Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.

A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.

“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.

The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.

“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
 

Not enough attention

There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.

“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.

Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.

“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.

The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.

All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.

The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.

This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
 

A ‘radical change’

Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”

But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”

Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.

“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.

The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
 

‘Masculine norms’

A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.

Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.

Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.

Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.

Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”

The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.

“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.

Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.

“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.

Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
 

Different symptoms

“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.

For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.

He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.

“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.

Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.

Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.

“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”

Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.

“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
 

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

Postpartum depression isn’t just something new mothers can get. Turns out it can affect new fathers, too, according to a new study.

Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.

But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.

Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.

A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.

“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.

The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.

“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
 

Not enough attention

There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.

“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.

Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.

“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.

The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.

All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.

The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.

This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
 

A ‘radical change’

Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”

But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”

Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.

“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.

The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
 

‘Masculine norms’

A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.

Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.

Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.

Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.

Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”

The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.

“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.

Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.

“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.

Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
 

Different symptoms

“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.

For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.

He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.

“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.

Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.

Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.

“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”

Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.

“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
 

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

Postpartum depression isn’t just something new mothers can get. Turns out it can affect new fathers, too, according to a new study.

Michael W., a 38-year-old New Jersey–based attorney, and his wife had been excitedly planning for the birth of their baby and were overjoyed when she was born.

But after that, “I found that parenting a newborn was shockingly exhausting. I felt unprepared for the task, overwhelmed by the burden of the 24-hour-schedule and lack of sleep, and I struggled with feelings of inadequacy,” he said in an interview.

Michael never thought he had postpartum depression (PPD), perhaps because the condition is more commonly associated with women. But a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health suggests that PPD also affects men.

A team of Danish investigators led by researcher Sarah Pedersen, of the department of public health, Aarhus University, extensively interviewed eight fathers with PPD and found their primary experiences involved feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless or inadequate, which sometimes turned into anger and frustration.

“I think one of the most important take-home messages is that practicing clinicians working with new parents should invite fathers to your consultations and engage the fathers as much as possible,” Ms. Pedersen said in an interview.

The findings also contained a message for parents, she says.

“I hope you will support each other and talk about your feelings and how you experience the transition to parenthood – know that it will take time to adjust to your new role,” she said.
 

Not enough attention

There’s been too little focus on fathers when it comes to PPD, according to Ms. Pedersen.

“During the last decade, several studies have examined the prevalence of PPD in men, and there is rising evidence that paternal PPD is associated with increased risk of long-term adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes in children,” she said.

Nevertheless, only three studies have been based on interviews with fathers who had personal experience with PPD.

“The purpose of our study was, first of all, to explore the lived experience of fathers who had PPD and, secondly, to gain deeper understanding of their help-seeking behavior – barriers to seeking help and facilitators of help-seeking,” Ms. Pedersen said.

The study was based on “semistructured” interviews with eight Danish fathers (ages 29-38 years) who had had PPD, none of whom had a previous history of depression.

All of them had received a formal diagnosis of PPD by a general practitioner or psychologist, and all had sought or received mental health care and considered themselves recovered from depression at the time of the interview.

The researchers used a technique called interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze the interviews.

This method “aims to produce in-depth examinations of certain phenomena by examining how individuals make meaning of their own life experiences,” the authors wrote.
 

A ‘radical change’

Of the fathers, five described the period of pregnancy as a “time of happiness, full of positive expectations about fatherhood.”

But “the fathers’ great expectations were later replaced by a very different reality of fatherhood,” the authors wrote, noting that the transition to fatherhood was, in the words of one participant, a “radical change that you just can’t imagine.”

Most fathers expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed, and three felt unready for the task, which added to their depression.

“The participants wanted to be emotionally and physically present in their child’s life, but during the time of their depression, these kind-hearted intentions changed into feelings of guilt and inadequacy, as the participants did not feel they had enough energy and mental strength to become the kind of fathers they wanted to be,” the authors wrote.

The fathers mentioned stressors they believed contributed to their PPD, including complications during their partners’ pregnancies, unplanned cesarean birth (three fathers), the partners’ difficulties with breastfeeding (five fathers), and employment-related concerns. Five reported that their partners had postpartum emotional distress.
 

‘Masculine norms’

A second focus of the research was to examine fathers’ help-seeking behaviors, Ms. Pedersen said.

Ultimately, all the men sought formal help, either from their general practitioners or from a health visitor, with two seeking help right after birth.

Although the men were able to recognize changes in mood and behavior in retrospect, many did not regard them as signs of depression before their diagnosis.

Most had heard of PPD, but primarily as it affects women. Three sought information online about paternal PPD but couldn’t find any.

Four participants described experiencing PPD as “taboo,” based on a “combination of false beliefs, stigma, and masculine norms,” the authors stated, since men “are supposed to be big and strong and take care of everything, and suddenly you can’t.”

The authors reported that seven participants were screened for PPD or depression by a health care professional.

“The screening was an important part of the help-seeking process, as this was the first time two of the fathers were introduced to PPD,” the authors noted.

Although the screening “had the potential to spark conversation” about PPD, it was geared toward women, and some participants did not feel it was relevant to them.

“Future research should focus on identification of educational needs about paternal PPD among both parents, health care professionals, and other professionals taking care of new families,” Ms. Pedersen said.

Michael W. says it would have been helpful if someone had prepared him and his wife for what to expect, or if there had been some type of screening. Also, he advises expectant parents to “get some real-life experience by spending time around a newborn to see what’s involved.”
 

Different symptoms

“We often talk about mothers suffering from PPD, so it is more normalized for mothers to bring it up or for loved ones to ask mothers about how they are doing physically and psychologically after the birth,” Craig Garfield, MD, an attending physician and founder/director of Family and Child Health innovations at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, said in an interview.

For fathers, “it is not discussed as commonly, so friends and families don’t often ask dads, and dads don’t know where to turn,” said Dr. Garfield, professor of pediatrics and medical social sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. He was not involved with the study.

He noted that symptoms in fathers might differ from those of mothers.

“I have seen fathers who are anxious or more moody than they had been prior, or more angry, and I have seen fathers who throw themselves into work or begin drinking more – all related to changes in mood and depressive symptoms in the postnatal period,” he said.

Symptoms in men may last longer than in women. Dr. Garfield’s group published a study in which they surveyed 400 mothers and fathers of premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) about depressive symptoms around the time of NICU admission, at discharge home, and then after 30 days at home.

Roughly one-third of mothers screened positive for depressive symptoms around NICU admission, as did 17% of fathers. But the mothers’ depression scores improved by discharge and 30 days after being home, while the fathers’ remained “essentially unchanged,” he said.

“Further, we found that if doctors were to screen mothers and fathers during the NICU stay – at admission or even at discharge – that would greatly improve their ability to predict who would still have depressive symptoms 1 month after going home.”

Ms. Pedersen agrees that clinicians should incorporate screening for PPD into their practices and be proactive in encouraging fathers to get help.

“Keep pushing,” she advised, as “men rarely seek help, compared to women, in matters of mental health.”
 

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.

Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.

The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.

Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).

Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.

Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.

Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.

“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”

As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”

However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
 

Study details

About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.

Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.

They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.

Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.

There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).

When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.

A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.

They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
 

Solutions are feasible

Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.

“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”

What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”

However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”

The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”

But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.

Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.

“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.

“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”

Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”

As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”

The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.

Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.

Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.

The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.

Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).

Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.

Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.

Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.

“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”

As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”

However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
 

Study details

About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.

Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.

They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.

Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.

There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).

When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.

A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.

They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
 

Solutions are feasible

Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.

“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”

What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”

However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”

The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”

But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.

Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.

“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.

“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”

Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”

As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”

The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.

Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.

Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.

The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.

Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).

Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.

Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.

Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.

“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”

As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”

However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
 

Study details

About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.

Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.

They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.

Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.

There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).

When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.

A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.

They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
 

Solutions are feasible

Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.

“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”

What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”

However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”

The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”

But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.

Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.

“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.

“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”

Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”

As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”

The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.