Carolyn Crist

Cannabis potency has increased worldwide in recent decades and is linked with more people becoming addicted to marijuana, according to a new study published in Lancet Psychiatry.

People who use higher concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, are more likely to have addiction and mental health problems, the study authors found.

For research, scientists have established a “standard THC unit” as 5 milligrams of THC, which produces a mild intoxication for nonregular users. Low-potency products are 5-10 milligrams per gram of THC, the researchers said.

“One of the highest-quality studies included in our publication found that use of high-potency cannabis, compared to low-potency cannabis, was linked to a four-fold increased risk of addiction,” Tom Freeman, PhD, the senior study author and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group at the University of Bath (England), told CNN.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reviewed studies that looked at the links between cannabis potency and mental health and addiction. They analyzed 20 studies that included reports on anxiety, depression, psychosis, and cannabis use disorder, or marijuana addiction.

Overall, the use of higher-potency cannabis was linked to a higher risk of cannabis use disorder, as compared with use of lower-potency cannabis.

The findings appear to line up with trends in cannabis addiction and treatment rates worldwide, “while cannabis potency continued to rise during the same time,” Dr. Freeman told CNN.

During the past decade, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found a 76% increase in people entering treatment for cannabis addiction. In the United States, about 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have cannabis use disorder, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What’s more, a report by the United Nations found that in the past 2 decades, the “proportion of people seeking treatment for cannabis addiction has risen in all world regions apart from Africa,” Dr. Freeman said.

In a gram of herbal cannabis, THC concentrations have increased by about 2.9 milligrams each year, according to another study by Dr. Freeman and colleagues. In the cannabis resin used to make extracts and concentrations, THC levels increased about 5.7 milligrams each year between 1975 to 2017.

Consumers may not know about the potency of their product or what the potency means, Dr. Freeman said. Those who buy from a store where marijuana is legally sold may be able to review a product label, but those who buy cannabis illegally “may not be able to access reliable information about the potency of the product they are using.”

Although people may try to adjust the amount that they consume by “adding less cannabis to their joint or inhaling less deeply,” Dr. Freeman said, it may not work as well as they intended. High-potency products still deliver a larger dose of THC than low-potency products.

In the review, Dr. Freeman and colleagues also found that more potent cannabis was linked to more cases of marijuana-associated psychosis. This could mean a “loss of contact with reality,” including delusions and hearing voices, he told CNN.

But the association with anxiety and depression was varied across the studies, “meaning that the impact is unclear for these other mental health outcomes,” Dr. Freeman said.

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

Cannabis potency has increased worldwide in recent decades and is linked with more people becoming addicted to marijuana, according to a new study published in Lancet Psychiatry.

People who use higher concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, are more likely to have addiction and mental health problems, the study authors found.

For research, scientists have established a “standard THC unit” as 5 milligrams of THC, which produces a mild intoxication for nonregular users. Low-potency products are 5-10 milligrams per gram of THC, the researchers said.

“One of the highest-quality studies included in our publication found that use of high-potency cannabis, compared to low-potency cannabis, was linked to a four-fold increased risk of addiction,” Tom Freeman, PhD, the senior study author and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group at the University of Bath (England), told CNN.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reviewed studies that looked at the links between cannabis potency and mental health and addiction. They analyzed 20 studies that included reports on anxiety, depression, psychosis, and cannabis use disorder, or marijuana addiction.

Overall, the use of higher-potency cannabis was linked to a higher risk of cannabis use disorder, as compared with use of lower-potency cannabis.

The findings appear to line up with trends in cannabis addiction and treatment rates worldwide, “while cannabis potency continued to rise during the same time,” Dr. Freeman told CNN.

During the past decade, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found a 76% increase in people entering treatment for cannabis addiction. In the United States, about 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have cannabis use disorder, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What’s more, a report by the United Nations found that in the past 2 decades, the “proportion of people seeking treatment for cannabis addiction has risen in all world regions apart from Africa,” Dr. Freeman said.

In a gram of herbal cannabis, THC concentrations have increased by about 2.9 milligrams each year, according to another study by Dr. Freeman and colleagues. In the cannabis resin used to make extracts and concentrations, THC levels increased about 5.7 milligrams each year between 1975 to 2017.

Consumers may not know about the potency of their product or what the potency means, Dr. Freeman said. Those who buy from a store where marijuana is legally sold may be able to review a product label, but those who buy cannabis illegally “may not be able to access reliable information about the potency of the product they are using.”

Although people may try to adjust the amount that they consume by “adding less cannabis to their joint or inhaling less deeply,” Dr. Freeman said, it may not work as well as they intended. High-potency products still deliver a larger dose of THC than low-potency products.

In the review, Dr. Freeman and colleagues also found that more potent cannabis was linked to more cases of marijuana-associated psychosis. This could mean a “loss of contact with reality,” including delusions and hearing voices, he told CNN.

But the association with anxiety and depression was varied across the studies, “meaning that the impact is unclear for these other mental health outcomes,” Dr. Freeman said.

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

Cannabis potency has increased worldwide in recent decades and is linked with more people becoming addicted to marijuana, according to a new study published in Lancet Psychiatry.

People who use higher concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, are more likely to have addiction and mental health problems, the study authors found.

For research, scientists have established a “standard THC unit” as 5 milligrams of THC, which produces a mild intoxication for nonregular users. Low-potency products are 5-10 milligrams per gram of THC, the researchers said.

“One of the highest-quality studies included in our publication found that use of high-potency cannabis, compared to low-potency cannabis, was linked to a four-fold increased risk of addiction,” Tom Freeman, PhD, the senior study author and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group at the University of Bath (England), told CNN.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reviewed studies that looked at the links between cannabis potency and mental health and addiction. They analyzed 20 studies that included reports on anxiety, depression, psychosis, and cannabis use disorder, or marijuana addiction.

Overall, the use of higher-potency cannabis was linked to a higher risk of cannabis use disorder, as compared with use of lower-potency cannabis.

The findings appear to line up with trends in cannabis addiction and treatment rates worldwide, “while cannabis potency continued to rise during the same time,” Dr. Freeman told CNN.

During the past decade, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found a 76% increase in people entering treatment for cannabis addiction. In the United States, about 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have cannabis use disorder, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What’s more, a report by the United Nations found that in the past 2 decades, the “proportion of people seeking treatment for cannabis addiction has risen in all world regions apart from Africa,” Dr. Freeman said.

In a gram of herbal cannabis, THC concentrations have increased by about 2.9 milligrams each year, according to another study by Dr. Freeman and colleagues. In the cannabis resin used to make extracts and concentrations, THC levels increased about 5.7 milligrams each year between 1975 to 2017.

Consumers may not know about the potency of their product or what the potency means, Dr. Freeman said. Those who buy from a store where marijuana is legally sold may be able to review a product label, but those who buy cannabis illegally “may not be able to access reliable information about the potency of the product they are using.”

Although people may try to adjust the amount that they consume by “adding less cannabis to their joint or inhaling less deeply,” Dr. Freeman said, it may not work as well as they intended. High-potency products still deliver a larger dose of THC than low-potency products.

In the review, Dr. Freeman and colleagues also found that more potent cannabis was linked to more cases of marijuana-associated psychosis. This could mean a “loss of contact with reality,” including delusions and hearing voices, he told CNN.

But the association with anxiety and depression was varied across the studies, “meaning that the impact is unclear for these other mental health outcomes,” Dr. Freeman said.

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

A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.

The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

ftwitty/E+

“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”

The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.

The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.

After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.

RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.

When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.

A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.

“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
 

A step forward

“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.

Courtesy University of Miami

“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.

On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”

The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.

The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

ftwitty/E+

“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”

The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.

The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.

After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.

RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.

When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.

A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.

“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
 

A step forward

“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.

Courtesy University of Miami

“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.

On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”

The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.

The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

ftwitty/E+

“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”

The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.

The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.

After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.

RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.

When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.

A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.

“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
 

A step forward

“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.

Courtesy University of Miami

“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.

On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”

The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A Plan B vending machine in Boston is gaining attention as reproductive rights have come into question since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A group of students at Boston University installed the vending machine to dispense emergency contraception at a lower cost for students, according to NBC Boston. Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, is a form of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or when another birth control method may have failed.

The vending machine is next to other vending machines filled with drinks and snacks in the basement of the student union at Boston University, NBC Boston reported. The machine contains boxes of levonorgestrel, a generic version of Plan B.

The boxes sell for $7.25, and the machine accepts all major credit cards. The charges are listed as “vending and snacks” on bank statements.

The Students for Reproductive Freedom decided to install the machine after seeing a similar one at Brandeis University, the news outlet reported. The vending machine was installed in March and has sold more than 1,000 emergency contraception pills. Students can also access emergency contraception through the university’s Student Health Services, which orders the contraception for the machine.

“We just wanted something that was low-cost and easy to access,” Charlotte Beatty, former copresident of Students for Reproductive Freedom, told NBC Boston.

“You don’t need to take a train across town. You don’t need to call a doctor,” she said. “It’s right there, and you can get it as soon as you need it.”

The demand for emergency contraception has increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Some retailers have placed limits on how many units can be purchased at one time.

“The overturning of Roe made us even more proud to offer this service to people in our community,” Molly Baker, the group’s other former copresident, told NBC Boston.

Pictures of the vending machine have recently gone viral on social media.

“It’s going viral because people are scared, and this is a solution,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now, told the news station.

Reproductive Equity Now, a reproductive health care nonprofit in Boston, recently honored the Boston University student group at its annual gala. Although emergency contraception is still legal, people are concerned about the effect that overturning Roe may have on future contraception access cases, Ms. Hart Holder said.

“We have to be fighting and planning for a nation that would restrict access to birth control, which is a terrifying thing to say,” she said.

The Boston University student group is now helping students at other schools who want a Plan B vending machine, and they published a resource guide to help others. They hope to install more machines on their campus and stock them with different types of medication in the future.

Plan B contains a high dose of progestin, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone, which helps to regulate the menstrual cycle, according to Today. The pill works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and can be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex, though it’s most effective when taken within 24 hours. Plan B doesn’t cause an abortion and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.

Plan B and its generic versions can be purchased over the counter at most pharmacies and ordered online from major retailers. Plan B typically costs $40-$50, while generic versions cost $11-$45.
 

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

A Plan B vending machine in Boston is gaining attention as reproductive rights have come into question since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A group of students at Boston University installed the vending machine to dispense emergency contraception at a lower cost for students, according to NBC Boston. Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, is a form of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or when another birth control method may have failed.

The vending machine is next to other vending machines filled with drinks and snacks in the basement of the student union at Boston University, NBC Boston reported. The machine contains boxes of levonorgestrel, a generic version of Plan B.

The boxes sell for $7.25, and the machine accepts all major credit cards. The charges are listed as “vending and snacks” on bank statements.

The Students for Reproductive Freedom decided to install the machine after seeing a similar one at Brandeis University, the news outlet reported. The vending machine was installed in March and has sold more than 1,000 emergency contraception pills. Students can also access emergency contraception through the university’s Student Health Services, which orders the contraception for the machine.

“We just wanted something that was low-cost and easy to access,” Charlotte Beatty, former copresident of Students for Reproductive Freedom, told NBC Boston.

“You don’t need to take a train across town. You don’t need to call a doctor,” she said. “It’s right there, and you can get it as soon as you need it.”

The demand for emergency contraception has increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Some retailers have placed limits on how many units can be purchased at one time.

“The overturning of Roe made us even more proud to offer this service to people in our community,” Molly Baker, the group’s other former copresident, told NBC Boston.

Pictures of the vending machine have recently gone viral on social media.

“It’s going viral because people are scared, and this is a solution,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now, told the news station.

Reproductive Equity Now, a reproductive health care nonprofit in Boston, recently honored the Boston University student group at its annual gala. Although emergency contraception is still legal, people are concerned about the effect that overturning Roe may have on future contraception access cases, Ms. Hart Holder said.

“We have to be fighting and planning for a nation that would restrict access to birth control, which is a terrifying thing to say,” she said.

The Boston University student group is now helping students at other schools who want a Plan B vending machine, and they published a resource guide to help others. They hope to install more machines on their campus and stock them with different types of medication in the future.

Plan B contains a high dose of progestin, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone, which helps to regulate the menstrual cycle, according to Today. The pill works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and can be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex, though it’s most effective when taken within 24 hours. Plan B doesn’t cause an abortion and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.

Plan B and its generic versions can be purchased over the counter at most pharmacies and ordered online from major retailers. Plan B typically costs $40-$50, while generic versions cost $11-$45.
 

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

A Plan B vending machine in Boston is gaining attention as reproductive rights have come into question since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A group of students at Boston University installed the vending machine to dispense emergency contraception at a lower cost for students, according to NBC Boston. Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, is a form of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or when another birth control method may have failed.

The vending machine is next to other vending machines filled with drinks and snacks in the basement of the student union at Boston University, NBC Boston reported. The machine contains boxes of levonorgestrel, a generic version of Plan B.

The boxes sell for $7.25, and the machine accepts all major credit cards. The charges are listed as “vending and snacks” on bank statements.

The Students for Reproductive Freedom decided to install the machine after seeing a similar one at Brandeis University, the news outlet reported. The vending machine was installed in March and has sold more than 1,000 emergency contraception pills. Students can also access emergency contraception through the university’s Student Health Services, which orders the contraception for the machine.

“We just wanted something that was low-cost and easy to access,” Charlotte Beatty, former copresident of Students for Reproductive Freedom, told NBC Boston.

“You don’t need to take a train across town. You don’t need to call a doctor,” she said. “It’s right there, and you can get it as soon as you need it.”

The demand for emergency contraception has increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Some retailers have placed limits on how many units can be purchased at one time.

“The overturning of Roe made us even more proud to offer this service to people in our community,” Molly Baker, the group’s other former copresident, told NBC Boston.

Pictures of the vending machine have recently gone viral on social media.

“It’s going viral because people are scared, and this is a solution,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now, told the news station.

Reproductive Equity Now, a reproductive health care nonprofit in Boston, recently honored the Boston University student group at its annual gala. Although emergency contraception is still legal, people are concerned about the effect that overturning Roe may have on future contraception access cases, Ms. Hart Holder said.

“We have to be fighting and planning for a nation that would restrict access to birth control, which is a terrifying thing to say,” she said.

The Boston University student group is now helping students at other schools who want a Plan B vending machine, and they published a resource guide to help others. They hope to install more machines on their campus and stock them with different types of medication in the future.

Plan B contains a high dose of progestin, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone, which helps to regulate the menstrual cycle, according to Today. The pill works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and can be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex, though it’s most effective when taken within 24 hours. Plan B doesn’t cause an abortion and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.

Plan B and its generic versions can be purchased over the counter at most pharmacies and ordered online from major retailers. Plan B typically costs $40-$50, while generic versions cost $11-$45.
 

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

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk declines after direct-acting antiviral treatment but remains high enough to justify screening for at least 7 years after hepatitis C cure, according to a new report.

Among patients with cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores of 3.25 or higher, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma appeared to decline progressively each year up to 7 years after a sustained virologic response, although the rate remained above the 1% per year threshold that warrants screening.

“The majority of patients with hepatitis C have been treated and cured in the United States,” George Ioannou, MD, the senior study author and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “After hepatitis C eradication, these patients generally do very well from the liver standpoint, but the one thing they have to continue worrying about is development of liver cancer.”

Dr. Ioannou, who is also director of hepatology at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, noted that patients may be screened “indefinitely,” which places a burden on the patients and the health care system.

“We are still not sure to what extent the risk of liver cancer declines after hepatitis C eradication as more and more time accrues,” he said. “In those who had cirrhosis of the liver prior to hepatitis C cure, we are still not certain if there is a time point after hepatitis C cure when we can tell a patient that their risk of liver cancer is now very low and we no longer need to keep screening for liver cancer.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Risk calculations

In a previous study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues found that hepatocellular carcinoma risk declined during the first 4 years of follow-up after a sustained virologic response from direct-acting antiviral medications. But the follow-up time wasn’t long enough to determine whether the cancer risk continues to decline to levels low enough to forgo screening.

In this study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues extended the follow-up to 7 years. They were curious to see whether the cancer risk declines enough to drop the screening requirement, particularly as related to pretreatment cirrhosis and fibrosis-4 scores.

The research team analyzed electronic health records from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of Veterans Health Administration records developed specifically for research purposes.

The researchers included 29,033 patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system who had been infected with hepatitis C virus and were treated with direct-acting antivirals between January 2013 and December 2015. The patients had a sustained virologic response, which is defined as a viral load below the lower limit of detection at least 12 weeks after therapy completion.

The patients were followed for incident hepatocellular carcinoma until December 2021. The researchers then calculated the annual incidence during each year of follow-up after treatment.

About 96.6% of patients were men, and 52.2% were non-Hispanic White persons. The average age was 61 years. The most common conditions were alcohol use disorder (43.7%), substance use disorder (37.7%), and diabetes (28.9%).

Among the 7,533 patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, 948 (12.6%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 4.9 years. Among patients with FIB-4 scores of 3.25 or higher, the annual incidence decreased from 3.8% in the first year to 1.4% in the seventh year but remained substantial up to 7 years after sustained virologic response. Among patients with both cirrhosis and a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate ranged from 0.7% to 1.3% and didn’t change significantly over time.

Among the 21,500 patients without pretreatment cirrhosis, 541 (or 2.5%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma during a mean follow-up period of 5.4 years. The incidence rate was significantly higher for patients with high FIB-4 scores. Among patients without cirrhosis but who had a high FIB-4 score, the annual rate remained stable but substantial (from 0.8% to 1.3%) for up to 7 years.

In a subgroup analysis that examined incidence according to changes in FIB-4 scores before and after treatment, the rate remained high among those with cirrhosis regardless of a score change. Among those without cirrhosis but who had a persistently high FIB-4 score, the incidence was high. In those without cirrhosis whose FIB-4 score dropped, the incidence was lower.

“The study demonstrates a clear decline in the risk of liver cancer over time after hepatitis C cure in the highest-risk group. This is very positive news for patients,” Dr. Ioannou said. “However, even with that decline in risk up to 7 years after eradication of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, the risk is still high enough to warrant liver cancer screening.”
 

Future concerns

For a follow-up study, Dr. Ioannou and colleagues plan to adjust their analyses for other factors that influence the risk of liver cancer, such as age and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Other studies could increase the follow-up time beyond 7 years and assess how changes in diabetes, weight management, and alcohol use might affect liver cancer risk.

“With the availability of safe and effective direct-acting antiviral treatments, a growing number of patients have been or will be treated and cured of their hepatitis C infection,” Nicole Kim, MD, one of the lead authors and a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization.

“It is therefore important for us to develop a better understanding of how liver cancer risk might change after treatment, so we can improve the care we provide to this patient population,” she said.

The results require validation in nonveteran cohorts, the study authors write, as well as follow-up after the COVID-19 pandemic, when screening and diagnostic practices were restricted.

“Several studies have demonstrated that HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] surveillance is underused in clinical practice, including in patients after [sustained virologic response],” Amit Singal, MD, clinical chief of hepatology and medical director of the liver tumor program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Singal, who wasn’t involved with this study, is evaluating several intervention strategies to increase surveillance utilization. His research group is conducting a multicenter randomized trial using mailed outreach invitations and is also evaluating a biomarker, PLSec-AFP, to identify patients with the highest risks who may warrant more intensive surveillance strategies.

“We have recently validated the performance of this biomarker in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis, including some with cured hepatitis C virus infection,” he said.

The study was funded by an NIH/NCI grant and a VA CSR under Dr. Ioannou. The manuscript writing was supported by the NIH under Dr. Kim and co-author Philip Vutien. Dr. Singal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

Amazon is working with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to develop cancer vaccines in a new clinical trial.

The trial is aimed at finding “personalized vaccines” to treat breast cancer and melanoma. The phase 1 trial is recruiting 20 people over the age of 18 to study the safety of the vaccines, according to CNBC.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium are listed as the researchers of the clinical trial, and Amazon is listed as a collaborator, according to a filing on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

“Amazon is contributing scientific and machine learning expertise to a partnership with Fred Hutch to explore the development of a personalized treatment for certain forms of cancer,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.

“It’s very early, but Fred Hutch recently received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to proceed with a phase 1 clinical trial, and it’s unclear whether it will be successful,” the spokesperson said. “This will be a long, multiyear process – should it progress, we would be open to working with other organizations in health care and life sciences that might also be interested in similar efforts.”

In recent years, Amazon has grown its presence in the health care industry, CNBC reported. The company launched an online pharmacy in 2020, developed a telehealth service called Amazon Care, and released its own COVID-19 test during the pandemic.

A research and development group inside Amazon, known as Grand Challenge, oversaw the company’s early cancer vaccine effort, according to Business Insider. It’s now under the purview of a cancer research team that reports to Robert Williams, the company’s vice president of devices.

The study was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2021 and began recruiting patients on June 9, according to the filing. The phase 1 trial is expected to run through November 2023.

The phase 1 trial will study the safety of personalized vaccines to treat patients with late-stage melanoma or hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer which has either spread to other parts of the body or doesn’t respond to treatment.

More information about the study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05098210.

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

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.

Use of new biologics such as ustekinumab and vedolizumab during pregnancy appears to be safe, with favorable pregnancy and postnatal infant outcomes, according to a study published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

The results, which come from the Czech IBD Working Group, point to the need for safe options to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during pregnancy, wrote the researchers led by Katarina Mitrova, MD, PhD, of the Clinical and Research Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Charles University, Prague.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

“As the long-term therapy can affect pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, strong evidence is needed to reassure patients about safety,” they wrote. “Recent years have seen significant progress in research around anti-TNF treatment in pregnancy, confirming its safe use, but the data on the new biologics are still limited.”

In a prospective, multicenter observational study of women with IBD, the researchers included 54 pregnancies in 49 women exposed to ustekinumab and 39 pregnancies in 37 women exposed to vedolizumab 2 months prior to conception or during pregnancy between January 2017 and December 2021 in 15 centers across the Czech Republic.

The control group of 90 pregnancies in 81 women was collected retrospectively and included pregnant women with IBD exposed to anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy – 29% to adalimumab and 71% to infliximab – in two centers in the Czech Republic between 2013 and 2021. Only singleton pregnancies were included in the analyses because of the increased risk of complications in multiple pregnancies, the investigators noted.

About 94% of patients treated with ustekinumab had Crohn’s disease, while the disease distribution was nearly equal in patients treated with vedolizumab. Active disease any time during pregnancy was reported in 17% of women on ustekinumab and 23% of those on vedolizumab, as well as 10% of those on anti-TNF therapy.

Pregnancies resulted in live births in 79.9% of the ustekinumab group, 89.7% of the vedolizumab group, and 87.8% of the anti-TNF group; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Overall, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between either the vedolizumab or ustekinumab groups or the controls. Similarly, there were no negative safety signals in the postnatal outcomes of children up to 1 year of life, including measures such as growth, psychomotor development, and the risk of allergy, atopy, or infectious complications.

Blue Planet Studio/Getty Images

Ustekinumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 33, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Five women stopped the treatment during the second trimester, and 37 continued to use it during the third trimester. An intensified regimen, shortening the interval to 4-6 weeks, was given to 13 patients. There were no disease flares after stopping the treatment.

Vedolizumab was administered for the last time during pregnancy at median gestational week 32, ranging from 18 to 38 weeks. Seven women discontinued the treatment during the second trimester, and 27 continued to use it in the third trimester. An intensified regimen was used in six pregnancies. No disease relapse was observed after treatment discontinuation.

Of the pregnancies that resulted in live births, maternal pregnancy-related complications occurred in six women (14%) treated with ustekinumab and seven women (20%) treated with vedolizumab. The most frequent complication was gestational diabetes mellitus, followed by arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, and intrapartum hemorrhage. The rate of complications was not significantly different from the control population for either biologic.

On the day of delivery, maternal venous blood and umbilical cord blood were collected to determine the levels of ustekinumab and vedolizumab.

Additional studies are needed because of the overall small study population, the researchers suggested.

“According to recent guidelines, continuing with biologic therapy, including new biologics, is recommended throughout pregnancy to prevent disease relapse, which is a strong risk factor of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

“Data on the safety of non-anti-TNF biologics in pregnancy are limited by small numbers and, in many cases, retrospective design,” said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, an assistant professor in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Minnesota and founder of the university's IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic. “This study’s prospective nature and larger size make it a particularly valuable contribution to the field. Hopefully IBD clinicians will be reassured that ustekinumab and vedolizumab are safe for both mother and baby and can be continued throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.”

No specific funding was received for the study. The authors listed financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Tillotts, Ferring, Alfasigma, Celltrion, and PRO.MED.CS. Dr. Shmidt declared no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated July 18, 2022.

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

The Biden administration issued guidance on July 13 to remind the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies of their obligation under federal law to supply prescribed medications, including drugs that may cause an abortion.

The Department of Health & Human Services listed several conditions that are commonly treated with drugs that can induce abortion, warning that withholding the pills could violate civil rights laws and could be considered discrimination based on sex or disability.

“We are committed to ensuring that everyone can access health care, free of discrimination,” Xavier Becerra, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said in a statement. “This includes access to prescription medications for reproductive health and other types of care.”

On July 11, Mr. Becerra issued other guidance to remind hospitals that federal law requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, which could include an abortion for those who arrive at emergency departments with a life-threatening issue.

Both actions by the Biden administration assert that federal laws override state laws that have banned or restricted abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to The New York Times.

The guidance focuses on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and related federal regulations, which state that recipients of federal financial assistance – including pharmacies that get Medicare and Medicaid payments – can’t discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The guidance highlights that pregnancy discrimination includes discrimination based on current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential or intended pregnancy, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Three drugs in particular – mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate – are often prescribed for other medical conditions but can also induce abortions in certain cases. Methotrexate, for example, is used for cancer and autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Mifepristone is often used for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, while misoprostol is often prescribed for ulcers. When used in combination, the two drugs are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration to terminate a pregnancy during the first 10 weeks and after a miscarriage.

Since Roe was overturned, women have posted on social media that they were denied the drugs for their medical conditions due to being of “childbearing age.”

“These are very legitimate issues in terms of people being concerned about having access to the basic medications that they have been receiving for years, just because those medications have the capacity to end a pregnancy,” Alina Salganicoff, PhD, the director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times.

“It doesn’t sound like [pharmacies] are blocking this for men,” she said.

The Biden administration’s guidance will likely be challenged in court, the newspaper reported. The update is cautiously written and doesn’t directly say that pharmacies must provide the drugs for the purpose of medication abortion.

In the meantime, pharmacists could feel stuck in the middle. Pharmacists who “believe they are acting in good faith in accordance with their state’s laws on abortion shouldn’t be left without a clear pathway forward,” the National Community Pharmacists Association said in a statement on July 13.

The association, which represents about 19,400 independent pharmacies across the United States, said pharmacies are regulated by states, and most states haven’t advised pharmacists on how to dispense the drugs in question.

“States have provided very little clarity on how pharmacists should proceed in light of conflicting state and federal laws and regulations,” B. Douglas Hoey, the association’s CEO, said in the statement.

“It is highly unfair for state and federal governments to threaten aggressive action against pharmacists who are just trying to serve their patients within new legal boundaries that are still taking shape,” he said.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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