Ob.Gyn. News

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

Higher rates of cervical cancer screening are associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery (PTD) in young nulliparous women aged 18-24 years, a large population-based study found.

For each additional recommended screening before childbirth, there was a direct increase in absolute PTD risk of 0.073 (95% confidence interval, 0.026-0.120), according to a study led by Rebecca A. Bromley-Dulfano, MS, an MD candidate at Stanford (Calif.) University and a PhD candidate in health policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

courtesy Ms. Bromley-Dulfano

There was no significant change in very preterm delivery (VPTD) risk, but mothers with hypertension or diabetes were at higher PTD risk.

Women in this younger age group are more prone to PTD. According to the study’s estimate, an additional 73 PTDs per 100,000 women could be expected for every 1 additional recommended screening before childbirth. For the year 2018, that translated to an estimated 1,348 PTDs that could have been averted, with reduced screening requirements (3% relative reduction).

“If you screen someone for cervical cancer and find a cervical lesion, the possible next steps can include a biopsy and an excisional procedure to remove the lesion,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano explained, “and these procedures which remove a small (mostly diseased) part of the cervix have been shown to slightly increase the risk of PTD. Particularly in young individuals with a cervix who are known to have high rates of lesion regression and who have more potential childbearing years ahead of them, it is important to weigh the oncological benefits with the adverse birth outcome risks.” 

Young women are more likely to have false-positive results on Papanicolaou tests and lesion regression within 2 years but may undergo unnecessary treatment, the authors noted.

Cervical excision procedures have previously been associated in clinical trials with an increase in PTB risk.

In their 2017 decision model in a fictive cohort, for example, Kamphuis and colleagues found the most intensive screening program was associated with an increase in maternal life years of 9%, a decrease in cervical cancer incidence of 67%, and a decrease in cervical cancer deaths of 75%. But those gains came at the cost of 250% more preterm births, compared with the least intensive program.

“These results can be used in future simulation models integrating oncological trade-offs to help ascertain optimal screening strategies,” the researchers wrote.

While the optimal screening strategy must trade off the oncologic benefits of cancer detection against the neonatal harms of overtreatment, the ideal age of cervical cancer screening onset and frequency remain uncertain, the authors noted. Recent American Cancer Society guidelines recommending less frequent screening for some diverge from those of other societies.

“The first and foremost priority is for gynecologists to continue to have individualized conversations with patients about all of the benefits and risks of procedures that patients undergo and to understand the benefits and risks influencing screening guidelines,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano said.
 

Cross-sectional study

The study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics to analyze associations between cervical cancer screening guidelines and birth outcomes women who had a singleton nulliparous birth from 19916 to 2018. Gestational age and maternal characteristics were drawn from birth certificates.

The mean age of the 11,333,151 multiracial cohort of women was 20.9 years, and 6.8% had hypertension or diabetes. The mean number of guideline-recommended screenings by time of childbirth was 2.4. Overall, PTD and very PTD occurred in 1,140,490 individuals (10.1%) and 333,040 (2.9%) of births, respectively.

Those with hypertension or diabetes had a somewhat higher PTD risk: 0.26% (95% CI, 0.11-0.4) versus 0.06% (95% CI, 0.01-0.10; Wald test, P < .001).

courtesy Northwell Health

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the analysis, ob.gyn. Fidel A. Valea, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New Hyde Park, N.Y., urged caution in drawing conclusions from large population analyses such as this.

“This study had over 11 million data points. Often these large numbers will show statistical differences that are not clinically significant,” he said in an interview. He noted that while small studies have shown a possible impact of frequent Pap tests on cervical function, “this is not 100% proven. Research from Texas showed that screening made a difference only in cases of dysplasia.”

Dr. Valea also noted that screening guidelines have already changed over the lengthy time span of the study and do reflect the concerns of the study authors.

“We know that the HPV virus is cleared more readily by young women than older women and so we have made adjustments and test them less frequently and we test them less early.” He added that conservative options are recommended even in the case of dysplasia.

In defense of the Pap smear test, he added: “It has virtually wiped out cervical cancer in the U.S., bringing it from No. 1 to No. 13.” While broadening HPV vaccination programs may impact guidelines in the future, “vaccination is still in its infancy. We have to wait until women have lived long to enough to see an impact.”

As to why this age group is more vulnerable to PTD, Dr. Valea said, “It’s likely multifactorial, with lifestyle and other factors involved.” Although based on U.S. data, the authors said their results may be useful for other public health entities, particularly in countries where cervical cancer is considerably more prevalent.

This work received no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Valea disclosed no competing interests.

Higher rates of cervical cancer screening are associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery (PTD) in young nulliparous women aged 18-24 years, a large population-based study found.

For each additional recommended screening before childbirth, there was a direct increase in absolute PTD risk of 0.073 (95% confidence interval, 0.026-0.120), according to a study led by Rebecca A. Bromley-Dulfano, MS, an MD candidate at Stanford (Calif.) University and a PhD candidate in health policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

courtesy Ms. Bromley-Dulfano

There was no significant change in very preterm delivery (VPTD) risk, but mothers with hypertension or diabetes were at higher PTD risk.

Women in this younger age group are more prone to PTD. According to the study’s estimate, an additional 73 PTDs per 100,000 women could be expected for every 1 additional recommended screening before childbirth. For the year 2018, that translated to an estimated 1,348 PTDs that could have been averted, with reduced screening requirements (3% relative reduction).

“If you screen someone for cervical cancer and find a cervical lesion, the possible next steps can include a biopsy and an excisional procedure to remove the lesion,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano explained, “and these procedures which remove a small (mostly diseased) part of the cervix have been shown to slightly increase the risk of PTD. Particularly in young individuals with a cervix who are known to have high rates of lesion regression and who have more potential childbearing years ahead of them, it is important to weigh the oncological benefits with the adverse birth outcome risks.” 

Young women are more likely to have false-positive results on Papanicolaou tests and lesion regression within 2 years but may undergo unnecessary treatment, the authors noted.

Cervical excision procedures have previously been associated in clinical trials with an increase in PTB risk.

In their 2017 decision model in a fictive cohort, for example, Kamphuis and colleagues found the most intensive screening program was associated with an increase in maternal life years of 9%, a decrease in cervical cancer incidence of 67%, and a decrease in cervical cancer deaths of 75%. But those gains came at the cost of 250% more preterm births, compared with the least intensive program.

“These results can be used in future simulation models integrating oncological trade-offs to help ascertain optimal screening strategies,” the researchers wrote.

While the optimal screening strategy must trade off the oncologic benefits of cancer detection against the neonatal harms of overtreatment, the ideal age of cervical cancer screening onset and frequency remain uncertain, the authors noted. Recent American Cancer Society guidelines recommending less frequent screening for some diverge from those of other societies.

“The first and foremost priority is for gynecologists to continue to have individualized conversations with patients about all of the benefits and risks of procedures that patients undergo and to understand the benefits and risks influencing screening guidelines,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano said.
 

Cross-sectional study

The study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics to analyze associations between cervical cancer screening guidelines and birth outcomes women who had a singleton nulliparous birth from 19916 to 2018. Gestational age and maternal characteristics were drawn from birth certificates.

The mean age of the 11,333,151 multiracial cohort of women was 20.9 years, and 6.8% had hypertension or diabetes. The mean number of guideline-recommended screenings by time of childbirth was 2.4. Overall, PTD and very PTD occurred in 1,140,490 individuals (10.1%) and 333,040 (2.9%) of births, respectively.

Those with hypertension or diabetes had a somewhat higher PTD risk: 0.26% (95% CI, 0.11-0.4) versus 0.06% (95% CI, 0.01-0.10; Wald test, P < .001).

courtesy Northwell Health

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the analysis, ob.gyn. Fidel A. Valea, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New Hyde Park, N.Y., urged caution in drawing conclusions from large population analyses such as this.

“This study had over 11 million data points. Often these large numbers will show statistical differences that are not clinically significant,” he said in an interview. He noted that while small studies have shown a possible impact of frequent Pap tests on cervical function, “this is not 100% proven. Research from Texas showed that screening made a difference only in cases of dysplasia.”

Dr. Valea also noted that screening guidelines have already changed over the lengthy time span of the study and do reflect the concerns of the study authors.

“We know that the HPV virus is cleared more readily by young women than older women and so we have made adjustments and test them less frequently and we test them less early.” He added that conservative options are recommended even in the case of dysplasia.

In defense of the Pap smear test, he added: “It has virtually wiped out cervical cancer in the U.S., bringing it from No. 1 to No. 13.” While broadening HPV vaccination programs may impact guidelines in the future, “vaccination is still in its infancy. We have to wait until women have lived long to enough to see an impact.”

As to why this age group is more vulnerable to PTD, Dr. Valea said, “It’s likely multifactorial, with lifestyle and other factors involved.” Although based on U.S. data, the authors said their results may be useful for other public health entities, particularly in countries where cervical cancer is considerably more prevalent.

This work received no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Valea disclosed no competing interests.

Higher rates of cervical cancer screening are associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery (PTD) in young nulliparous women aged 18-24 years, a large population-based study found.

For each additional recommended screening before childbirth, there was a direct increase in absolute PTD risk of 0.073 (95% confidence interval, 0.026-0.120), according to a study led by Rebecca A. Bromley-Dulfano, MS, an MD candidate at Stanford (Calif.) University and a PhD candidate in health policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

courtesy Ms. Bromley-Dulfano

There was no significant change in very preterm delivery (VPTD) risk, but mothers with hypertension or diabetes were at higher PTD risk.

Women in this younger age group are more prone to PTD. According to the study’s estimate, an additional 73 PTDs per 100,000 women could be expected for every 1 additional recommended screening before childbirth. For the year 2018, that translated to an estimated 1,348 PTDs that could have been averted, with reduced screening requirements (3% relative reduction).

“If you screen someone for cervical cancer and find a cervical lesion, the possible next steps can include a biopsy and an excisional procedure to remove the lesion,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano explained, “and these procedures which remove a small (mostly diseased) part of the cervix have been shown to slightly increase the risk of PTD. Particularly in young individuals with a cervix who are known to have high rates of lesion regression and who have more potential childbearing years ahead of them, it is important to weigh the oncological benefits with the adverse birth outcome risks.” 

Young women are more likely to have false-positive results on Papanicolaou tests and lesion regression within 2 years but may undergo unnecessary treatment, the authors noted.

Cervical excision procedures have previously been associated in clinical trials with an increase in PTB risk.

In their 2017 decision model in a fictive cohort, for example, Kamphuis and colleagues found the most intensive screening program was associated with an increase in maternal life years of 9%, a decrease in cervical cancer incidence of 67%, and a decrease in cervical cancer deaths of 75%. But those gains came at the cost of 250% more preterm births, compared with the least intensive program.

“These results can be used in future simulation models integrating oncological trade-offs to help ascertain optimal screening strategies,” the researchers wrote.

While the optimal screening strategy must trade off the oncologic benefits of cancer detection against the neonatal harms of overtreatment, the ideal age of cervical cancer screening onset and frequency remain uncertain, the authors noted. Recent American Cancer Society guidelines recommending less frequent screening for some diverge from those of other societies.

“The first and foremost priority is for gynecologists to continue to have individualized conversations with patients about all of the benefits and risks of procedures that patients undergo and to understand the benefits and risks influencing screening guidelines,” Ms. Bromley-Dulfano said.
 

Cross-sectional study

The study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics to analyze associations between cervical cancer screening guidelines and birth outcomes women who had a singleton nulliparous birth from 19916 to 2018. Gestational age and maternal characteristics were drawn from birth certificates.

The mean age of the 11,333,151 multiracial cohort of women was 20.9 years, and 6.8% had hypertension or diabetes. The mean number of guideline-recommended screenings by time of childbirth was 2.4. Overall, PTD and very PTD occurred in 1,140,490 individuals (10.1%) and 333,040 (2.9%) of births, respectively.

Those with hypertension or diabetes had a somewhat higher PTD risk: 0.26% (95% CI, 0.11-0.4) versus 0.06% (95% CI, 0.01-0.10; Wald test, P < .001).

courtesy Northwell Health

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the analysis, ob.gyn. Fidel A. Valea, MD, director of gynecologic oncology at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New Hyde Park, N.Y., urged caution in drawing conclusions from large population analyses such as this.

“This study had over 11 million data points. Often these large numbers will show statistical differences that are not clinically significant,” he said in an interview. He noted that while small studies have shown a possible impact of frequent Pap tests on cervical function, “this is not 100% proven. Research from Texas showed that screening made a difference only in cases of dysplasia.”

Dr. Valea also noted that screening guidelines have already changed over the lengthy time span of the study and do reflect the concerns of the study authors.

“We know that the HPV virus is cleared more readily by young women than older women and so we have made adjustments and test them less frequently and we test them less early.” He added that conservative options are recommended even in the case of dysplasia.

In defense of the Pap smear test, he added: “It has virtually wiped out cervical cancer in the U.S., bringing it from No. 1 to No. 13.” While broadening HPV vaccination programs may impact guidelines in the future, “vaccination is still in its infancy. We have to wait until women have lived long to enough to see an impact.”

As to why this age group is more vulnerable to PTD, Dr. Valea said, “It’s likely multifactorial, with lifestyle and other factors involved.” Although based on U.S. data, the authors said their results may be useful for other public health entities, particularly in countries where cervical cancer is considerably more prevalent.

This work received no specific funding. The authors and Dr. Valea disclosed no competing interests.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The risks of common postpartum mental health (PMH) problems may soon be more predictable, thanks to a new comprehensive index for identifying mothers’ 1-year risk at time of delivery.

Developed by Canadian researchers, the easily implementable PMH CAREPLAN index “creates a framework for clinically actionable risk stratification that could assist patients and providers in determining an individual’s level of risk for common postpartum mental health disorders and direct them to appropriate intervention,” wrote a group led by Simone N. Vigod, MD, MSc, head of the department of psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

courtesy Women&#039;s College Hospital

After giving birth, women are especially vulnerable to major depression, anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which have a general postpartum prevalence of 7%-20%.

Common PMH disorders are to be distinguished from the more rare but severe PMH disorders such as postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the researchers stressed.

“We know there are interventions that can prevent these disorders, but these seem to work best in people who are at high risk for developing the illnesses, “ Dr. Vigod said. “So, we wanted to be able to determine the level of risk that a person might actually experience them.”

In an ideal world, she continued, physicians might be able to say to a patient: “You have a 50% chance of developing postpartum depression and anxiety, so it may be worth investing your time and resources in a course of preventive psychotherapy.” Or: “You have a 90% chance of developing these disorders, so it might be worth going back on your medications even though you are breastfeeding.” Or: “You have only a 1% chance of developing them, so probably it’s not worthwhile to go back on your medication prophylactically.”

A need for a new assessment tool, akin to the Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular events and the FRAX scoring system for 10-year fracture risk, was evident since previous indices based largely on patient self-reporting have had moderate predictive capacity, and have not been adopted in clinical practice, Dr. Vigod and associates noted.
 

Split-cohort design

Using population-based health administrative data and hospital birth records from Ontario during 2012-2015, Dr. Vigod’s group created and internally validated a predictive model for common PMH disorders in a cohort of 152,362 mothers. They then converted it to a risk index after validation in an additional cohort of 75,772 mothers. The women had delivered live infants during 2012-2014.

A common PMH disorder occurred in 13,608 mothers, while 214,526 were unaffected.

Independently associated PMH variables were many: prenatal care provider, mental health diagnosis history and medications during pregnancy, psychiatric hospital admissions or ED visits, conception type and complications, and apprehension of newborn by child services. Other factors were region of maternal origin, extremes of gestational age at birth, primary maternal language, lactation intention, maternal age, and number of prenatal visits.

Based on a broad span of scores from 0 to 39, 1-year common PMH disorder risk ranged from 1.5% to 40.5%, with an overall 1-year prevalence of 6%, consistent with previous studies. That included 11,262 (5%) mothers with an anxiety or related disorder, 3,392 (1.5%) with a depressive episode, and 1,046 (0.5%) with both. The best trade-off of sensitivity/specificity for risk appeared to be at a screening threshold score of 17 or above.
 

Risk drivers

PMH-affected mothers were slightly younger than unaffected women (mean age, 29.9 years vs. 30.6 years), more likely to be primiparous (45.2% vs. 42%), and less likely to be recent immigrants (16.7% vs. 27.2%).

They were also more likely to have previously experienced postpartum depression (4.4% vs. 1.4%), any depression (15.3% vs. 4.4%), and any anxiety disorder (13.8% vs. 4.3%).

As to lifestyle, smoking was more common in women with PMH (15.0% vs. 10.2%), as were the use of nonprescribed substances (3% vs. 1.4%) and intimate partner violence in pregnancy (2.7% vs. 1.5%).

In addition, the affected group experienced more pregnancy complications than their unaffected peers (16% vs. 13.9%), preterm birth (8.2% vs. 6.8%), and Apgar scores below 7 at 1 or 5 minutes (10.5% vs. 7.6%).

Low income did not appear to have an impact since just over 20% in either group fell into the lowest neighborhood income quintile.

courtesy Northwestern Medicine

Commenting on the index but not involved in developing it, LaTasha D. Nelson, MD, an associate professor or medicine and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, doubted the Canadian model would work as well in the more fragmented U.S. health care system, compared with Canada’s universal model with its large provincial health databases.

She also found the large number of variables and broad score range potentially problematic, especially if the risk threshold is set at less than half the maximum score at 17, at which some low-risk mothers might get screening and perhaps intervention. “Are we going to use up the resources we have for those who might not need help, or are we going to treat someone who really needs it?” she asked.

Another concern is the postpartum timing of assessment. At Dr. Nelson’s center, mothers are checked for mental health at two points during pregnancy and those with higher scores are triaged for further care.

Dr. Nelson was also puzzled by the score-lowering impact of prenatal care given by a nurse practitioner and “other” provider : –5 and –2, respectively, versus +3 for a midwife and +1 for a family doctor. “This may capture more relaxed, easy-going multiparous mothers who felt comfortable turning to an NP,” she said.

It may indeed reflect that the risk level of a person who sees those providers is overall lower, Dr. Vigod agreed. “This is one reason why we would want to see replication of these results in other jurisdictions and by other ways of diagnosis before putting it out into clinical practice.”

As to the score-lowering effect of not speaking English as the primary tongue, Dr. Nelson wondered, “is that because we’re taking better care of mothers who speak the main language and missing those who speak other languages? Are they not getting the same level of interrogation?”

It may be that individuals in these groups were less likely to access mental health care, Dr. Vigod agreed, or it might reflect the so-called healthy immigrant effect or culturally different levels of postpartum support. “It might mean that there are more people who benefit from community-level protective factors in these groups. We know that social support is an important protective factor.”

Despite her reservations about the index, Dr. Nelson said that increasing attention to the pre- and postnatal mental health of mothers is an important part of maternal care. “This is an issue that needs to be recognized.”

The next step, Dr. Vigod said, is to determine whether the index holds up in other populations. “Then, we would want to test it out to see if recommending interventions based on a certain level of risk improves outcomes. At what percentage risk would starting an antidepressant medication result in a reduced risk for postpartum depression or anxiety – 90%, 80%, 70%, or less?”

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data were analyzed by ICES, an independent nonprofit research organization that holds population-based data. Dr. Vigod reported royalties from UpToDate for materials related to depression and pregnancy. Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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