Ob.Gyn. News

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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

For patients with uterine prolapse, a traditional technique showed superiority, while vaginal estrogen cream failed to improve outcomes for vaginal apical prolapse repair in two new studies published in JAMA.

“Approximately one in five women will undergo surgery for prolapse and/or urinary incontinence by the age of 80, which is more likely than the risk of developing breast cancer,” said David D. Rahn, MD, corresponding author of the study on perioperative vaginal estrogen, in an interview.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“About 13% of women will specifically undergo surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse,” said Dr. Rahn, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Reoperation for recurrent prolapse is not uncommon.

In their study, Dr. Rahn and colleagues examined whether the addition of perioperative vaginal estrogen cream in postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical correction could both strengthen the repair and lessen the likelihood of recurrence. The researchers randomized 206 postmenopausal women who were seeking surgical repair for bothersome anterior and apical vaginal prolapse to 1 gram of conjugated estrogen cream or a placebo for nightly vaginal insertion for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for at least 5 weeks of preoperative use. The treatment continued twice weekly for 12 months following surgery.

The primary outcome was the time to a failed prolapse repair by 12 months after surgery. Failure was defined by at least one of three criteria, “anatomical/objective prolapse of anterior or posterior walls beyond the hymen or the apex descending more than one-third of the vaginal length, subjective vaginal bulge symptoms, or repeated prolapse treatment,” the researchers wrote. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 90% and 92% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, were White; 10% and 5%, respectively, were Black. Other baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

After 12 months, the surgical failure incidence was not significantly different between the vaginal estrogen and placebo groups (19% vs. 9%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97).

Overall, anatomic recurrence was the most common outcome associated with surgical failure.

However, vaginal atrophy scores for most bothersome symptom was significantly better at 12 months in the vaginal estrogen group, compared with the placebo group, in a subset of 109 patients who reported vaginal atrophy that was at least “moderately bothersome,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a nonvalidated instrument to assess secondary outcomes, the potentially short time period to the primary outcome, and the inclusion of the apex descending below one third total vaginal length as a criterion for surgical failure (which could be considered conservative), the researchers noted.
 

Unexpected results

“This work followed logically from a pilot study that similarly randomized postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical repair to vaginal estrogen cream versus placebo,” Dr. Rahn said. “In that smaller study, full thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of surgery. Those participants who received the estrogen had a thicker vaginal epithelium, thicker underlying muscularis, and appeared to have a more robust concentration of strong connective tissue (i.e., type I collagen) with less of the proteases that break down connective tissue.”

This suggested that preoperative estrogen might optimize the vaginal tissue at the time of the repair. Dr. Rahn said. However, “despite evidence that the application of vaginal estrogen cream decreased the symptoms and signs of atrophic vaginal tissues, this did not lessen the likelihood of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence 12 months after surgical repair.”

The current study “would argue against routine prescription of vaginal estrogen to optimize vaginal tissue for prolapse repair, a practice that is recommended by some experts and commonly prescribed anecdotally,” said Dr. Rahn. “However, in those patients with prolapse and bothersome atrophy-related complaints such as vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse, vaginal estrogen may still be appropriate,” and vaginal estrogen also could be useful for postoperatively for patients prone to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

Additional research from the study is underway, said Dr. Rahn. “All participants have now been followed to 3 years after surgery, and those clinical results are now being analyzed. In addition, full-thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of all 186 surgeries; these are being analyzed and may yield important information regarding how biomarkers for connective tissue health could point to increased (or decreased) risk for prolapse recurrence.”
 

Manchester technique surpasses sacrospinous hysteropexy

In the second JAMA study, sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine-sparing surgical management of uterine prolapse was less effective than the older Manchester procedure, based on data from nearly 400 individuals.

“Until now, the optimal uterus-sparing procedure for the treatment of uterine descent remained uncertain,” lead author Rosa Enklaar, MD, of Radboud (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

courtesy Radboud University Medical Center

“Globally, there has been a lack of scientific evidence comparing the efficacy of these two techniques, and this study aims to bridge that gap,” she said.

In their study, Dr. Enklaar and colleagues randomized 215 women to sacrospinous hysteropexy and 215 to the Manchester procedure. The mean age of the participants was 61.7 years.

The Manchester procedure involves “extraperitoneal plication of the uterosacral ligaments at the posterior side of the uterus and amputation of the cervix,” and “the cardinal ligaments are plicated on the anterior side of the cervix, “ the researchers wrote.

The primary outcome was a composite outcome of surgical success at 2 years after surgery, defined as the absence of three elements: absence of vaginal prolapse beyond the hymen, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of retreatment of current prolapse.

Overall, 87.3% of patients in the Manchester group and 77.0% in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group met the primary outcome. At the end of the 2-year follow-up period, perioperative and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

Dr. Enklaar said she was surprised by the findings. “At the start of this study, we hypothesized that there would be no difference between the two techniques,” as both have been used for a long period of time.

However, “based on the composite outcome of success at 2-year follow-up after the primary uterus-sparing surgery for uterine descent in patients with pelvic organ prolapse, these findings indicate that the sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of blinding and the applicability of the results only to women without uterine prolapse past the hymen, as well as the exclusion of patients with higher-stage prolapse, the researchers said. However, the results suggest that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester technique for uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

As for additional research, few studies of prolapse surgery with long-term follow-up data are available, Dr. Enklaar said. “It is important that this current study will be continued to see the results after a longer follow-up period. Personalized health care is increasingly important, and we need to provide adequate information when counselling patients. With studies such as this one, we hope to improve the choices regarding surgical treatment of uterine descent.”
 

Studies challenge current prolapse protocols

The study by Dr. Rahn and colleagues contradicts the common clinical practice of preoperative vaginal estrogen to reduce recurrence of prolapse, wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, of the University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla, in an accompanying editorial that addressed both studies.

University of California San Diego Health

The results suggest that use of perioperative intravaginal estrogen had no impact on outcomes, “despite the surgeon assessment of less atrophy and better vaginal apex tissue in the estrogen group,” he noted. Although vaginal estrogen has other benefits in terms of patient symptoms and effects on the vaginal epithelium, “surgeons should not prescribe vaginal estrogen with the expectation that it will improve surgical success.”

The study by Dr. Enklaar and colleagues reflects the growing interest in uterine-conserving procedures, Dr. Nager wrote. The modified Manchester procedure conforms to professional society guidelines, and the composite outcome conforms to current standards for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Although suspension of the vaginal apex was quite successful, the researchers interpreted their noninferiority findings with caution, said Dr. Nager. However, they suggested that the modified Manchester procedure as performed in their study “has a role in modern prolapse surgical repair for women with uterine descent that does not protrude beyond the hymen.”

The vaginal estrogen study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, a Bridge Award from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Rahn disclosed grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the AAOGF bridge award, as well as nonfinancial support from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and Pfizer during the study. The uterine prolapse study was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For patients with uterine prolapse, a traditional technique showed superiority, while vaginal estrogen cream failed to improve outcomes for vaginal apical prolapse repair in two new studies published in JAMA.

“Approximately one in five women will undergo surgery for prolapse and/or urinary incontinence by the age of 80, which is more likely than the risk of developing breast cancer,” said David D. Rahn, MD, corresponding author of the study on perioperative vaginal estrogen, in an interview.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“About 13% of women will specifically undergo surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse,” said Dr. Rahn, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Reoperation for recurrent prolapse is not uncommon.

In their study, Dr. Rahn and colleagues examined whether the addition of perioperative vaginal estrogen cream in postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical correction could both strengthen the repair and lessen the likelihood of recurrence. The researchers randomized 206 postmenopausal women who were seeking surgical repair for bothersome anterior and apical vaginal prolapse to 1 gram of conjugated estrogen cream or a placebo for nightly vaginal insertion for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for at least 5 weeks of preoperative use. The treatment continued twice weekly for 12 months following surgery.

The primary outcome was the time to a failed prolapse repair by 12 months after surgery. Failure was defined by at least one of three criteria, “anatomical/objective prolapse of anterior or posterior walls beyond the hymen or the apex descending more than one-third of the vaginal length, subjective vaginal bulge symptoms, or repeated prolapse treatment,” the researchers wrote. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 90% and 92% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, were White; 10% and 5%, respectively, were Black. Other baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

After 12 months, the surgical failure incidence was not significantly different between the vaginal estrogen and placebo groups (19% vs. 9%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97).

Overall, anatomic recurrence was the most common outcome associated with surgical failure.

However, vaginal atrophy scores for most bothersome symptom was significantly better at 12 months in the vaginal estrogen group, compared with the placebo group, in a subset of 109 patients who reported vaginal atrophy that was at least “moderately bothersome,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a nonvalidated instrument to assess secondary outcomes, the potentially short time period to the primary outcome, and the inclusion of the apex descending below one third total vaginal length as a criterion for surgical failure (which could be considered conservative), the researchers noted.
 

Unexpected results

“This work followed logically from a pilot study that similarly randomized postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical repair to vaginal estrogen cream versus placebo,” Dr. Rahn said. “In that smaller study, full thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of surgery. Those participants who received the estrogen had a thicker vaginal epithelium, thicker underlying muscularis, and appeared to have a more robust concentration of strong connective tissue (i.e., type I collagen) with less of the proteases that break down connective tissue.”

This suggested that preoperative estrogen might optimize the vaginal tissue at the time of the repair. Dr. Rahn said. However, “despite evidence that the application of vaginal estrogen cream decreased the symptoms and signs of atrophic vaginal tissues, this did not lessen the likelihood of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence 12 months after surgical repair.”

The current study “would argue against routine prescription of vaginal estrogen to optimize vaginal tissue for prolapse repair, a practice that is recommended by some experts and commonly prescribed anecdotally,” said Dr. Rahn. “However, in those patients with prolapse and bothersome atrophy-related complaints such as vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse, vaginal estrogen may still be appropriate,” and vaginal estrogen also could be useful for postoperatively for patients prone to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

Additional research from the study is underway, said Dr. Rahn. “All participants have now been followed to 3 years after surgery, and those clinical results are now being analyzed. In addition, full-thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of all 186 surgeries; these are being analyzed and may yield important information regarding how biomarkers for connective tissue health could point to increased (or decreased) risk for prolapse recurrence.”
 

Manchester technique surpasses sacrospinous hysteropexy

In the second JAMA study, sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine-sparing surgical management of uterine prolapse was less effective than the older Manchester procedure, based on data from nearly 400 individuals.

“Until now, the optimal uterus-sparing procedure for the treatment of uterine descent remained uncertain,” lead author Rosa Enklaar, MD, of Radboud (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

courtesy Radboud University Medical Center

“Globally, there has been a lack of scientific evidence comparing the efficacy of these two techniques, and this study aims to bridge that gap,” she said.

In their study, Dr. Enklaar and colleagues randomized 215 women to sacrospinous hysteropexy and 215 to the Manchester procedure. The mean age of the participants was 61.7 years.

The Manchester procedure involves “extraperitoneal plication of the uterosacral ligaments at the posterior side of the uterus and amputation of the cervix,” and “the cardinal ligaments are plicated on the anterior side of the cervix, “ the researchers wrote.

The primary outcome was a composite outcome of surgical success at 2 years after surgery, defined as the absence of three elements: absence of vaginal prolapse beyond the hymen, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of retreatment of current prolapse.

Overall, 87.3% of patients in the Manchester group and 77.0% in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group met the primary outcome. At the end of the 2-year follow-up period, perioperative and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

Dr. Enklaar said she was surprised by the findings. “At the start of this study, we hypothesized that there would be no difference between the two techniques,” as both have been used for a long period of time.

However, “based on the composite outcome of success at 2-year follow-up after the primary uterus-sparing surgery for uterine descent in patients with pelvic organ prolapse, these findings indicate that the sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of blinding and the applicability of the results only to women without uterine prolapse past the hymen, as well as the exclusion of patients with higher-stage prolapse, the researchers said. However, the results suggest that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester technique for uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

As for additional research, few studies of prolapse surgery with long-term follow-up data are available, Dr. Enklaar said. “It is important that this current study will be continued to see the results after a longer follow-up period. Personalized health care is increasingly important, and we need to provide adequate information when counselling patients. With studies such as this one, we hope to improve the choices regarding surgical treatment of uterine descent.”
 

Studies challenge current prolapse protocols

The study by Dr. Rahn and colleagues contradicts the common clinical practice of preoperative vaginal estrogen to reduce recurrence of prolapse, wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, of the University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla, in an accompanying editorial that addressed both studies.

University of California San Diego Health

The results suggest that use of perioperative intravaginal estrogen had no impact on outcomes, “despite the surgeon assessment of less atrophy and better vaginal apex tissue in the estrogen group,” he noted. Although vaginal estrogen has other benefits in terms of patient symptoms and effects on the vaginal epithelium, “surgeons should not prescribe vaginal estrogen with the expectation that it will improve surgical success.”

The study by Dr. Enklaar and colleagues reflects the growing interest in uterine-conserving procedures, Dr. Nager wrote. The modified Manchester procedure conforms to professional society guidelines, and the composite outcome conforms to current standards for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Although suspension of the vaginal apex was quite successful, the researchers interpreted their noninferiority findings with caution, said Dr. Nager. However, they suggested that the modified Manchester procedure as performed in their study “has a role in modern prolapse surgical repair for women with uterine descent that does not protrude beyond the hymen.”

The vaginal estrogen study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, a Bridge Award from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Rahn disclosed grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the AAOGF bridge award, as well as nonfinancial support from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and Pfizer during the study. The uterine prolapse study was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For patients with uterine prolapse, a traditional technique showed superiority, while vaginal estrogen cream failed to improve outcomes for vaginal apical prolapse repair in two new studies published in JAMA.

“Approximately one in five women will undergo surgery for prolapse and/or urinary incontinence by the age of 80, which is more likely than the risk of developing breast cancer,” said David D. Rahn, MD, corresponding author of the study on perioperative vaginal estrogen, in an interview.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“About 13% of women will specifically undergo surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse,” said Dr. Rahn, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Reoperation for recurrent prolapse is not uncommon.

In their study, Dr. Rahn and colleagues examined whether the addition of perioperative vaginal estrogen cream in postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical correction could both strengthen the repair and lessen the likelihood of recurrence. The researchers randomized 206 postmenopausal women who were seeking surgical repair for bothersome anterior and apical vaginal prolapse to 1 gram of conjugated estrogen cream or a placebo for nightly vaginal insertion for 2 weeks, then twice weekly for at least 5 weeks of preoperative use. The treatment continued twice weekly for 12 months following surgery.

The primary outcome was the time to a failed prolapse repair by 12 months after surgery. Failure was defined by at least one of three criteria, “anatomical/objective prolapse of anterior or posterior walls beyond the hymen or the apex descending more than one-third of the vaginal length, subjective vaginal bulge symptoms, or repeated prolapse treatment,” the researchers wrote. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 90% and 92% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, were White; 10% and 5%, respectively, were Black. Other baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

After 12 months, the surgical failure incidence was not significantly different between the vaginal estrogen and placebo groups (19% vs. 9%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97).

Overall, anatomic recurrence was the most common outcome associated with surgical failure.

However, vaginal atrophy scores for most bothersome symptom was significantly better at 12 months in the vaginal estrogen group, compared with the placebo group, in a subset of 109 patients who reported vaginal atrophy that was at least “moderately bothersome,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a nonvalidated instrument to assess secondary outcomes, the potentially short time period to the primary outcome, and the inclusion of the apex descending below one third total vaginal length as a criterion for surgical failure (which could be considered conservative), the researchers noted.
 

Unexpected results

“This work followed logically from a pilot study that similarly randomized postmenopausal women with prolapse planning surgical repair to vaginal estrogen cream versus placebo,” Dr. Rahn said. “In that smaller study, full thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of surgery. Those participants who received the estrogen had a thicker vaginal epithelium, thicker underlying muscularis, and appeared to have a more robust concentration of strong connective tissue (i.e., type I collagen) with less of the proteases that break down connective tissue.”

This suggested that preoperative estrogen might optimize the vaginal tissue at the time of the repair. Dr. Rahn said. However, “despite evidence that the application of vaginal estrogen cream decreased the symptoms and signs of atrophic vaginal tissues, this did not lessen the likelihood of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence 12 months after surgical repair.”

The current study “would argue against routine prescription of vaginal estrogen to optimize vaginal tissue for prolapse repair, a practice that is recommended by some experts and commonly prescribed anecdotally,” said Dr. Rahn. “However, in those patients with prolapse and bothersome atrophy-related complaints such as vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse, vaginal estrogen may still be appropriate,” and vaginal estrogen also could be useful for postoperatively for patients prone to recurrent urinary tract infections. 

Additional research from the study is underway, said Dr. Rahn. “All participants have now been followed to 3 years after surgery, and those clinical results are now being analyzed. In addition, full-thickness vaginal wall biopsies were collected at the time of all 186 surgeries; these are being analyzed and may yield important information regarding how biomarkers for connective tissue health could point to increased (or decreased) risk for prolapse recurrence.”
 

Manchester technique surpasses sacrospinous hysteropexy

In the second JAMA study, sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine-sparing surgical management of uterine prolapse was less effective than the older Manchester procedure, based on data from nearly 400 individuals.

“Until now, the optimal uterus-sparing procedure for the treatment of uterine descent remained uncertain,” lead author Rosa Enklaar, MD, of Radboud (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

courtesy Radboud University Medical Center

“Globally, there has been a lack of scientific evidence comparing the efficacy of these two techniques, and this study aims to bridge that gap,” she said.

In their study, Dr. Enklaar and colleagues randomized 215 women to sacrospinous hysteropexy and 215 to the Manchester procedure. The mean age of the participants was 61.7 years.

The Manchester procedure involves “extraperitoneal plication of the uterosacral ligaments at the posterior side of the uterus and amputation of the cervix,” and “the cardinal ligaments are plicated on the anterior side of the cervix, “ the researchers wrote.

The primary outcome was a composite outcome of surgical success at 2 years after surgery, defined as the absence of three elements: absence of vaginal prolapse beyond the hymen, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of retreatment of current prolapse.

Overall, 87.3% of patients in the Manchester group and 77.0% in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group met the primary outcome. At the end of the 2-year follow-up period, perioperative and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

Dr. Enklaar said she was surprised by the findings. “At the start of this study, we hypothesized that there would be no difference between the two techniques,” as both have been used for a long period of time.

However, “based on the composite outcome of success at 2-year follow-up after the primary uterus-sparing surgery for uterine descent in patients with pelvic organ prolapse, these findings indicate that the sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure,” she said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of blinding and the applicability of the results only to women without uterine prolapse past the hymen, as well as the exclusion of patients with higher-stage prolapse, the researchers said. However, the results suggest that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester technique for uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

As for additional research, few studies of prolapse surgery with long-term follow-up data are available, Dr. Enklaar said. “It is important that this current study will be continued to see the results after a longer follow-up period. Personalized health care is increasingly important, and we need to provide adequate information when counselling patients. With studies such as this one, we hope to improve the choices regarding surgical treatment of uterine descent.”
 

Studies challenge current prolapse protocols

The study by Dr. Rahn and colleagues contradicts the common clinical practice of preoperative vaginal estrogen to reduce recurrence of prolapse, wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, of the University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla, in an accompanying editorial that addressed both studies.

University of California San Diego Health

The results suggest that use of perioperative intravaginal estrogen had no impact on outcomes, “despite the surgeon assessment of less atrophy and better vaginal apex tissue in the estrogen group,” he noted. Although vaginal estrogen has other benefits in terms of patient symptoms and effects on the vaginal epithelium, “surgeons should not prescribe vaginal estrogen with the expectation that it will improve surgical success.”

The study by Dr. Enklaar and colleagues reflects the growing interest in uterine-conserving procedures, Dr. Nager wrote. The modified Manchester procedure conforms to professional society guidelines, and the composite outcome conforms to current standards for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Although suspension of the vaginal apex was quite successful, the researchers interpreted their noninferiority findings with caution, said Dr. Nager. However, they suggested that the modified Manchester procedure as performed in their study “has a role in modern prolapse surgical repair for women with uterine descent that does not protrude beyond the hymen.”

The vaginal estrogen study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, a Bridge Award from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Rahn disclosed grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the AAOGF bridge award, as well as nonfinancial support from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and Pfizer during the study. The uterine prolapse study was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Nager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.

That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?

Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.

Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.

It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
 

Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD

Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:

Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.

Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.

Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?

Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.

The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.

Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that successful treatment of PPD is not a “one-stop shop,” but rather typically includes a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

Cisgender women who identify as sexual minorities may have an increased risk of postpartum depression compared with heterosexual women, new research shows. However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.

“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.

Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.

To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.

Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.

The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).

Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.

The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.

Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.

The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”

On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

Dr. Lapping-Carr

Develop more supportive systems

To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.

“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.

Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.

“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.

While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.

“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.

Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.

“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.

She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.

“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said. 

The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”

Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.

“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”  

The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

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

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

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

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.

This news organization asked physicians what they learned in med school that they now contest. Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
 

Treat appropriately for pain

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.

“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”

Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”

Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.

“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
 

Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine

Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.

“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.

Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.

“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.

Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
 

Patient care is at the core of medicine

Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.

“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”

But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.

“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”

Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.

“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
 

Physician, heal thyself

Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”

Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
 

Practice with gender at the forefront

Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.

“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”

Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.

“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.

“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
 

Talk about racial disparities

John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.

“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”

Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
 

Information at your fingertips

For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.

“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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