The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

Can’t sleep? When slumber doesn’t come naturally, some are turning to melatonin, an over-the-counter sleep aid that often is mistaken for a supplement. This powerful hormone plays an important role in human biology, and specialists are questioning whether increasing levels could be doing more harm than good.

A new investigation launched by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine is looking into the safety of melatonin. And while the health advisory checking the evidence is underway, the academy is recommending that melatonin not be used for insomnia in adults or children.

But what is insomnia, and how is it different from a few bad nights of sleep? Insomnia disturbs sleep at least three times a week for more than 3 months, often causing people to feel tired during the day as well.

Production of melatonin (dubbed the “vampire hormone”) begins at night, when it starts getting dark outside. Melatonin release is scheduled by the small but mighty pineal gland at the back of the head. Melatonin signals to the body that it’s time to sleep. And as the sun rises and light shines, melatonin levels decline again to help the body wake.

Sometimes packaged in gummy bear fruit flavors, melatonin can have an alluring appeal to sleep-deprived parents looking for relief for themselves and their children.

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said he has a doctor colleague who started taking melatonin to help him during the pandemic when he was having trouble falling asleep at night. His doctor friend started giving the hormone to his own children, who were also having sleep issues.

But Dr. Rishi said there are important reasons to not use melatonin for insomnia until more information is available.

Melatonin affects sleep, but this hormone also influences other functions in the body. “It has an impact on body temperature, blood sugar, and even the tone of blood vessels,” Dr. Rishi said.

And because melatonin is available over the counter in the United States, it hasn’t been approved as a medicine under the Food and Drug Administration. A previous study of melatonin products, for instance, flagged problems with inconsistent doses, which make it hard for people to know exactly how much they are getting and prompted calls for more FDA oversight.
 

Imprecise doses

While melatonin doses typically range from 1 to 5 milligrams, bottles examined have been off target with much more or less hormone in the product than listed on the label.

Researchers from the University of Guelph (Ont.), tested 30 commercially available formulas and found the melatonin content varied from the ingredients labeled on the bottles by more than 10%. In addition to melatonin, the researchers found other substances in the bottles too: In about a quarter of the products, they also identified serotonin.
 

Impurities

While melatonin plays a role in setting the body’s biological clock and the sleep and wake cycle, serotonin is also at work. Occurring naturally in our bodies, serotonin is involved in mood and helps with deep REM sleep. But adding serotonin in unknown amounts could be unhealthy.

Dr. Rishi said it can be dangerous to use a product as a medication when doses can be so off and there are unknown byproducts in it.

Serotonin can influence the heart, blood vessels, and brain, so it’s not something Dr. Rishi wants to see people taking without paying attention. People taking medication for mood disorders could be especially affected by the serotonin in their sleep aid, he warns.

For anyone taking melatonin, Dr. Rishi recommended they check the bottle to see whether they are using a product with a USP-verified check mark, which indicates that the product meets the standards of the U.S. Pharmacopeia Convention.

The risk of impurities is a good reason for kids to not be given the hormone, but another worry is whether melatonin interferes with puberty in children – which is also a question researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa are asking.
 

Disrupting puberty

While short-term melatonin use is considered safe, the researchers reported, concerns that long-term use might delay children’s sexual maturation require more study. One theory is that nightly melatonin use might interrupt the decline of natural hormone levels and interfere with the start of puberty.

Researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit also reported an uptick in accidental ingestion of melatonin in children. Kids got their hands on melatonin and swallowed too many capsules more often than other pill-related mishaps during the pandemic.

Dr. Rishi said more research is needed to assess the safe use of melatonin in children. He points out that the hormone can treat circadian rhythm disorders in adults.

While specialists weigh the benefits and risks of melatonin use and where it is safest to try, Dr. Rishi said the hormone does have a role in medicine.

Melatonin will probably need to be regulated by the FDA as a medication – especially for children – Dr. Rishi pointed out. And what place, if any, it will have for managing chronic insomnia is “a big question mark.”

Results of the investigation by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine will be published on its sleepeducation.org website in a few months.

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

Can’t sleep? When slumber doesn’t come naturally, some are turning to melatonin, an over-the-counter sleep aid that often is mistaken for a supplement. This powerful hormone plays an important role in human biology, and specialists are questioning whether increasing levels could be doing more harm than good.

A new investigation launched by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine is looking into the safety of melatonin. And while the health advisory checking the evidence is underway, the academy is recommending that melatonin not be used for insomnia in adults or children.

But what is insomnia, and how is it different from a few bad nights of sleep? Insomnia disturbs sleep at least three times a week for more than 3 months, often causing people to feel tired during the day as well.

Production of melatonin (dubbed the “vampire hormone”) begins at night, when it starts getting dark outside. Melatonin release is scheduled by the small but mighty pineal gland at the back of the head. Melatonin signals to the body that it’s time to sleep. And as the sun rises and light shines, melatonin levels decline again to help the body wake.

Sometimes packaged in gummy bear fruit flavors, melatonin can have an alluring appeal to sleep-deprived parents looking for relief for themselves and their children.

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said he has a doctor colleague who started taking melatonin to help him during the pandemic when he was having trouble falling asleep at night. His doctor friend started giving the hormone to his own children, who were also having sleep issues.

But Dr. Rishi said there are important reasons to not use melatonin for insomnia until more information is available.

Melatonin affects sleep, but this hormone also influences other functions in the body. “It has an impact on body temperature, blood sugar, and even the tone of blood vessels,” Dr. Rishi said.

And because melatonin is available over the counter in the United States, it hasn’t been approved as a medicine under the Food and Drug Administration. A previous study of melatonin products, for instance, flagged problems with inconsistent doses, which make it hard for people to know exactly how much they are getting and prompted calls for more FDA oversight.
 

Imprecise doses

While melatonin doses typically range from 1 to 5 milligrams, bottles examined have been off target with much more or less hormone in the product than listed on the label.

Researchers from the University of Guelph (Ont.), tested 30 commercially available formulas and found the melatonin content varied from the ingredients labeled on the bottles by more than 10%. In addition to melatonin, the researchers found other substances in the bottles too: In about a quarter of the products, they also identified serotonin.
 

Impurities

While melatonin plays a role in setting the body’s biological clock and the sleep and wake cycle, serotonin is also at work. Occurring naturally in our bodies, serotonin is involved in mood and helps with deep REM sleep. But adding serotonin in unknown amounts could be unhealthy.

Dr. Rishi said it can be dangerous to use a product as a medication when doses can be so off and there are unknown byproducts in it.

Serotonin can influence the heart, blood vessels, and brain, so it’s not something Dr. Rishi wants to see people taking without paying attention. People taking medication for mood disorders could be especially affected by the serotonin in their sleep aid, he warns.

For anyone taking melatonin, Dr. Rishi recommended they check the bottle to see whether they are using a product with a USP-verified check mark, which indicates that the product meets the standards of the U.S. Pharmacopeia Convention.

The risk of impurities is a good reason for kids to not be given the hormone, but another worry is whether melatonin interferes with puberty in children – which is also a question researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa are asking.
 

Disrupting puberty

While short-term melatonin use is considered safe, the researchers reported, concerns that long-term use might delay children’s sexual maturation require more study. One theory is that nightly melatonin use might interrupt the decline of natural hormone levels and interfere with the start of puberty.

Researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit also reported an uptick in accidental ingestion of melatonin in children. Kids got their hands on melatonin and swallowed too many capsules more often than other pill-related mishaps during the pandemic.

Dr. Rishi said more research is needed to assess the safe use of melatonin in children. He points out that the hormone can treat circadian rhythm disorders in adults.

While specialists weigh the benefits and risks of melatonin use and where it is safest to try, Dr. Rishi said the hormone does have a role in medicine.

Melatonin will probably need to be regulated by the FDA as a medication – especially for children – Dr. Rishi pointed out. And what place, if any, it will have for managing chronic insomnia is “a big question mark.”

Results of the investigation by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine will be published on its sleepeducation.org website in a few months.

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

Can’t sleep? When slumber doesn’t come naturally, some are turning to melatonin, an over-the-counter sleep aid that often is mistaken for a supplement. This powerful hormone plays an important role in human biology, and specialists are questioning whether increasing levels could be doing more harm than good.

A new investigation launched by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine is looking into the safety of melatonin. And while the health advisory checking the evidence is underway, the academy is recommending that melatonin not be used for insomnia in adults or children.

But what is insomnia, and how is it different from a few bad nights of sleep? Insomnia disturbs sleep at least three times a week for more than 3 months, often causing people to feel tired during the day as well.

Production of melatonin (dubbed the “vampire hormone”) begins at night, when it starts getting dark outside. Melatonin release is scheduled by the small but mighty pineal gland at the back of the head. Melatonin signals to the body that it’s time to sleep. And as the sun rises and light shines, melatonin levels decline again to help the body wake.

Sometimes packaged in gummy bear fruit flavors, melatonin can have an alluring appeal to sleep-deprived parents looking for relief for themselves and their children.

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said he has a doctor colleague who started taking melatonin to help him during the pandemic when he was having trouble falling asleep at night. His doctor friend started giving the hormone to his own children, who were also having sleep issues.

But Dr. Rishi said there are important reasons to not use melatonin for insomnia until more information is available.

Melatonin affects sleep, but this hormone also influences other functions in the body. “It has an impact on body temperature, blood sugar, and even the tone of blood vessels,” Dr. Rishi said.

And because melatonin is available over the counter in the United States, it hasn’t been approved as a medicine under the Food and Drug Administration. A previous study of melatonin products, for instance, flagged problems with inconsistent doses, which make it hard for people to know exactly how much they are getting and prompted calls for more FDA oversight.
 

Imprecise doses

While melatonin doses typically range from 1 to 5 milligrams, bottles examined have been off target with much more or less hormone in the product than listed on the label.

Researchers from the University of Guelph (Ont.), tested 30 commercially available formulas and found the melatonin content varied from the ingredients labeled on the bottles by more than 10%. In addition to melatonin, the researchers found other substances in the bottles too: In about a quarter of the products, they also identified serotonin.
 

Impurities

While melatonin plays a role in setting the body’s biological clock and the sleep and wake cycle, serotonin is also at work. Occurring naturally in our bodies, serotonin is involved in mood and helps with deep REM sleep. But adding serotonin in unknown amounts could be unhealthy.

Dr. Rishi said it can be dangerous to use a product as a medication when doses can be so off and there are unknown byproducts in it.

Serotonin can influence the heart, blood vessels, and brain, so it’s not something Dr. Rishi wants to see people taking without paying attention. People taking medication for mood disorders could be especially affected by the serotonin in their sleep aid, he warns.

For anyone taking melatonin, Dr. Rishi recommended they check the bottle to see whether they are using a product with a USP-verified check mark, which indicates that the product meets the standards of the U.S. Pharmacopeia Convention.

The risk of impurities is a good reason for kids to not be given the hormone, but another worry is whether melatonin interferes with puberty in children – which is also a question researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa are asking.
 

Disrupting puberty

While short-term melatonin use is considered safe, the researchers reported, concerns that long-term use might delay children’s sexual maturation require more study. One theory is that nightly melatonin use might interrupt the decline of natural hormone levels and interfere with the start of puberty.

Researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit also reported an uptick in accidental ingestion of melatonin in children. Kids got their hands on melatonin and swallowed too many capsules more often than other pill-related mishaps during the pandemic.

Dr. Rishi said more research is needed to assess the safe use of melatonin in children. He points out that the hormone can treat circadian rhythm disorders in adults.

While specialists weigh the benefits and risks of melatonin use and where it is safest to try, Dr. Rishi said the hormone does have a role in medicine.

Melatonin will probably need to be regulated by the FDA as a medication – especially for children – Dr. Rishi pointed out. And what place, if any, it will have for managing chronic insomnia is “a big question mark.”

Results of the investigation by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine will be published on its sleepeducation.org website in a few months.

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

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Poverty is known to be associated with poor health outcomes throughout life. Now, new research has shown that, from as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, fetuses are already feeling the effects of poverty.

“There is a well-recognized health inequality where quality and duration of life are lower among the most poor. This divide is present both within and between countries,” said Steve Turner, who led the study.

Given the association of poverty and low birth weight, the authors of the new multi-national study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, hypothesized that “individuals from highest household income compared to those with lowest household income will have increased fetal size in the second and third trimester and birth.”

For their study, researchers from the University of Aberdeen gathered details of ante-natal and birth size – second and third trimester fetal ultrasound measurements of estimated fetal weight, biparietal diameter, and femur length, as well as birth measurements of weight, occipitofrontal circumference, and crown heel length – from eight cohorts that included 21,714 individuals from nations including Scotland, England, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and France.

They then related these to household income, taking into account other factors, including mother’s age, height, number of other children, and smoking, analyzing the data using cross-sectional two-stage individual patient data analyses and a longitudinal one-stage individual patient data analysis.
 

Household income closely related to birth size

The authors found that higher household income was associated with larger fetal head size and weight but not length, from the second half of pregnancy, compared with lowest household income. They said that their results argue for “a relationship where household income is closely related to birth size.”

The results showed that, across the countries studied, babies were smaller at birth if they came from a lower income household, and this discrepancy in size was already apparent at 20 weeks gestation.

“This is the first time that size differences have been found at such an early stage of development,” the authors said, “and also the first time it has been compared across continents.”

Professor Turner pointed out that “what this study shows is that the inequality, as seen by reduced size in fetal life, is present long before birth, and this poverty gap widens between twenty weeks gestation and birth.”

He added: “Basically, regardless of whether you live in Saudi, the U.S., or Europe, and accounting for things that might affect fetal growth, if your parents are poor, you will be smaller before birth and at birth compared to if your parents were not poor.”
 

Increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty

He emphasized how this was problematic, as small size before and after birth puts an individual at “increased risk for many serious illnesses in later life.”

The authors hope that this study will encourage health care providers to recognize the health risks associated with lower income for mothers and their unborn children and to provide more support and guidance to mitigate the risks.

They said, “interventions aimed at softening the impact of poverty on pregnant mothers could reduce incidence of small for gestational age and the associated burden of excessive morbidity and mortality throughout the life course.”

Professor Turner described how the mechanisms that drive this inequity may be explained by pregnant mothers from poor households having difficulty in accessing or engaging with antenatal care. 

“We would like to see health care providers around the world strive to increase engagement with pregnant mothers living in poverty,” he said. “This engagement will reward all of society by putting unborn children on a trajectory to longer and healthier lives.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cell phone rings in a red-brick bungalow in a village in India. A woman on the other end of the phone tells Ms. SK, a community health worker, that menstruation has started. Ms. SK guns her scooter through the dusty streets for 15 minutes in 30° C (86° F) heat.

A 32-year-old woman, waiting in the shade of a blue corrugated-iron roof, hands over a green polythene bag. Ms. SK whisks the package to the local health center and tucks it into a –20° C freezer. The following week, it will ride in dry ice to the National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health Laboratory in Mumbai for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.

The two women are participants in the world’s first community-based validation trial of cervical screening using menstrual pads.

This moment in rural India at first glance appears to have little relevance to wealthy countries such as the United States.

However, public health officials in both countries are trying to solve the same problem: how to prevent unnecessary deaths from cervical cancer by reaching women who have never or rarely been screened.

The United States has more in common with India than it may care to admit.

“In the U.S., we still have pockets of disparities that actually have incidence rates [of cervical cancer] comparable to many low- and middle-income countries,” said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, MBBS, DrPh, MPH, of the National Cancer Institute, where he heads the HPV and cervical cancer prevention clinical research program for the National Institutes of Health.

The incidence of cervical cancer in India is approximately 19 per 100,000 women. For the past 15 years incidence in the United States has stalled at approximately 7 per 100,000.

In India, there are no organized screening programs and most cervical cancer is regional or distant metastatic at diagnosis.

In the United States, 52% of new cases are advanced, and half of these are among women who have never or rarely been screened.

“There is a critical need for new strategies to reach this population,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said. “We absolutely have to do something out of the box creatively.”

Almost all cervical cancers are triggered by HPV, most commonly high-risk HPV-16 and HPV-18, although there are more than 200 types. HPV testing is taking over from cytology (Papanicolaou test) for secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

The trial of screening for HPV in menstrual pads that is ongoing in India was the brainchild of Atul Budukh, PhD, a government public health researcher and professor at the Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

Dr. Budukh’s eyes were opened to the scale of the problem when he participated in a cluster-randomized trial funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The study, published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 131,746 rural women in the Osmanabad district of India.

A team of researchers from India and France compared outcomes for women over 8 years after cervical screening by HPV, cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid. The control group was usual care, where women were advised how to seek screening at local hospitals. Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment.

Over the 8-year follow-up, advanced cervical cancer was found in twice as many women left to their own devices, compared with women who had HPV testing during the study (82 vs. 39; hazard ratio for HPV, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69).

Similarly, cervical cancer deaths in the control group were nearly two times higher than among the women who were screened for HPV in the study (64 vs. 34; HR for HPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83).

The study proved that rural Indian women were dying unnecessarily because they weren’t seeking cervical screening. And education wasn’t the problem.

“When we go and educate [a rural woman] about ... risk factors and the need to undergo screening, she understands it very well,” said Dr. Budukh. “She is ready to come but her priority is her bread and butter – she will lose her daily wages.”

Dr. Budukh and his team negotiated with local employers so that women could come to screening clinics, but they soon realized this wasn’t scalable.

One year after the NEJM publication, Dr. Budukh found what he was looking for.

A team of Hong Kong clinicians, headed by Sze Chuen Cesar Wong of the Hong Kong Cancer Institute, published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology showing that menstrual pads provide reliable HPV results in women with and without cervical disease.

The Hong Kong team tested sanitary napkins for HPV from 235 of their patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or condyloma acuminatum before and after treatment. Samples were compared with those from 323 women without cervical disease; for HPV in sanitary napkins the sensitivity was 82.8%, specificity was 93.1%, and positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 87.9%, respectively.

The authors pointed out that menstrual pad testing was the only truly noninvasive approach to HPV screening versus the other self-sampling methods such as tampons and cytobrushes. Also, these self-sampling tests require specialized liquid-based transport media. A menstrual pad needs only a plastic bag.

Dr. Budukh had his at-home solution for the hard-working rural women of India.

With funding from the Indian government, Dr. Budukh’s team put together a validation trial that ran from 2013 to 2016 in 18 rural villages in two separate districts: Ahmednagar and Pune.

Local health workers went house to house to recruit women and get family buy-in for this culturally delicate project. Participants were instructed to use their regular sanitary protection – most commonly a washable cloth – and told to call the health worker on the first day of menstruation. Health workers gave each woman a Ziploc bag for the pad and, for privacy, an outer polythene sac.

In Ahmednagar, all women who provided their pad also got screened with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) by a mobile screening unit. In Pune, only the positive cases underwent HC2. Screening was also extended to anyone who requested it, but these people were not included in the final analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from three 5 mm–sized punches in the pad using a commercial kit, QIAamp DNA Micro, and the quality and purity of the DNA checked by Implen NanoPhotometer.

The team followed the same protocol for PCR HPV assay as the team from Hong Kong.

The results were published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 2018.

The concordance rate for a positive result between the menstrual pad sample and conventional HPV sampling was 98.8% for Ahmednagar and 95.2% for samples from Pune. The sensitivity for the first study was 83% and the specificity 99% – similar to that for the women in Hong Kong. The second study had lower sensitivity and specificity (67% and 88%), partly because of poor storage as a result of frequent power cuts.

The total cost per woman was $30.78.

“I was very excited when we saw the results,” Dr. Budukh recalled. “That day I couldn’t sleep ... such a wonderful result! I was excited to start the next phase immediately.”

Dr. Budukh has applied to the Indian government for funding for a larger trial involving 3,000 women. If successful, he hopes such evidence would be sufficient to convince the Indian government to make menstrual pad screening standard procedure for the 390 million women who live in India’s countryside.

Testing never-screened women for cervical cancer using menstrual pads appears to be relatively reliable, convenient, private, noninvasive, and incredibly cheap.

So who else has tried it?

The first published account of HPV in menstrual blood was a 2003 study by Tommy Tong and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Hong Kong. The authors heralded, with lamentable optimism, “a new paradigm in cervical cancer screening.”

In the following 20 years, just six more studies appeared: two from Dr. Budukh’s field trial in India and four from hospital-based pilot studies in Hong Kong (in 2010 and 2018), South Korea (in 2016), and mainland China (in 2021). All these studies, although small, were published in top-flight journals and demonstrate high concordance between conventional high-risk HPV testing and menstrual-blood tests.

This news organization tried to find a U.S. thought-leader who had heard of the approach.

Elizabeth Fontham, MPH, DrPh, is the founding dean of the school of public health at Louisiana State University Health Center in New Orleans, and president of the American Cancer Society. Dr. Fontham said in an email that she had “no plans to evaluate the impact related to menstrual pads, but perhaps others have looked into that.”

Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, was first author on the evidence synthesis driving the current cervical cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. When asked about menstrual pad testing for HPV, she said she had “not heard of it before.”

The USPSTF guidelines don’t mention sanitary pads but acknowledge that “self-collection may be one strategy for increasing screening rates among populations where they are currently low.”

The USPSTF methodology excludes data from countries that don’t match the United States on the Human Development Index “or [are] not applicable to U.S. clinical settings or populations.” (Presumably, data from Hong Kong and South Korea would qualify; Indian data would not.)

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe of the NCI hadn’t heard of menstrual pad testing either, but he has a different explanation for lack of interest in this approach – or, indeed, any form of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – in the United States.

“We have not seen movement happen in this space for years. ... If there is one intervention that we can simplify, that still has not been made widely available, it is self-sampling ... [but] we don’t have [Food and Drug Administration] approval for it,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said.

“Our system, at least in the U.S., is based on industry manufacturers seeking an approval for a particular way of collection and then clinicians and clinical-guideline bodies signing on. ... For a lot of reasons industry has shied away over the past several years, so far, at least, on seeking approval for self-sampling-based approaches,” he commented.

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe aims to change that. He heads a new NCI-led initiative called “The Last Mile,” a nationwide clinical trial supported by federal agencies, industry partners, and professional societies. The goal is to validate self-sampled HPV testing as non-inferior to specimens collected by providers. The team is currently finalizing the methodology of the study, so Dr. Sahasrabuddhe could not share the self-sampling methods that will be on trial, nor the industry partners who have signed up.

The following tests are approved in the United States for physician-collected HPV screening: Hybrid Capture 2, used in the Indian studies (Qiagen); cobas HPV (Roche); Aptima (Hologic); Cervista (Hologic); and Onclarity (Becton Dickinson).

Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said that, while a sanitary pad in a Ziploc bag is unlikely to make the grade for The Last Mile study, he doesn’t totally dismiss their potential and said the NCI is always open to new ideas.

“We are not supporting anybody specifically for menstrual pad-based collection device development,” Dr. Sahasrabuddhe said, “But if they fulfill other criteria for a small business–based grant application, they absolutely are welcome to apply for NCI funding for this.”

Said Dr. Melnikow: “Pre-COVID, the head of [the World Health Organization] said that we could eliminate cervical cancer from the globe and that we have the tools to do that now. And he’s right.”

Dr. Budukh, Dr. Melnikow, and Dr. Sahasrabuddhe disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B.  The Gail risk model^1-3 is used to predict 5-year and lifetime risks of developing invasive breast cancer, and to identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications such as tamoxifen. The Gail model should not be used to determine risk for purposes of screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)⁴ (or genetic testing).

Breast cancer risk models are used to stratify patients into risk categories to facilitate personalized screening and surveillance plans for clinical management. Several breast cancer risk assessment tools have been developed that include different combinations of known risk factors and are used for the following purposes: 

1. To identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications. The Gail model is used to determine risk for purposes of advising on use of risk-reducing medications. Any woman with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% by the Gail model may be considered for treatment with tamoxifen (pre or postmenopausal), raloxifene (postmenopausal), or aromatase inhibitors (postmenopausal).⁵  

In the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P1 study,⁶ women at increased risk for breast cancer were defined as follows: 

• age 35 to 59 years with at least a 1.66% 5-year risk for developing breast cancer by the Gail model
• personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)
• age over 60 years.

More than 13,000 such women were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or placebo daily for 5 years. Tamoxifen reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49% and reduced the risk of noninvasive cancer by 50% compared with placebo. The reduced risk of breast cancer was only seen for estrogen-receptor–expressing tumors. There was a 2.5-fold increase in risk of endometrial cancer in women taking tamoxifen and a decrease in hip and spine fracture risk. Blood clots causing stroke and deep vein thrombosis are increased in women taking tamoxifen.^7,8

2. To identify women who may carry a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Some models (eg, Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS],⁹ Penn II,¹⁰ BOADICEA,¹¹ and BRCAPRO¹²) estimate the probability of a BRCA1/2 mutation; however, most testing guidelines are now criterion based (eg, National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) as opposed to probability based. In practical terms, clinical decision making around genetic testing is rarely based on a priori probabilities. 

3.  To identify women who meet criteria for high-risk screening MRI. Current American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines⁴ recommend annual screening MRI, in addition to mammography, beginning by age 25 to 30 in women who have a lifetime risk of breast cancer ≥20%. Any of the models used to predict risk of a pathogenic mutation (Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS], Penn II, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO),or the Claus model,¹³ but not the Gail model, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for purposes of screening MRI guidelines. The ACS and NCCN guidelines specifically recommend against using the Gail model to determine risk for purposes of MRI screening or risk of pathogenic mutation, as it does not include detailed family history such as age at diagnosis or second-degree relatives. 

ACS and NCCN guidelines also recommend annual screening MRI beginning by age 25, with the addition of mammography beginning at age 30, in women who are known to carry pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy), and in women who are first-degree relatives of known mutation carriers but who are themselves untested.¹⁴ 

Women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Cowden syndrome, Neurofibromatosis type 1, or Fanconi anemia) are also recommended for annual screening MRI beginning between ages 20-35, depending on the mutation.¹⁴ Women with known pathogenic mutations in ATM, CHEK2, or NBN should consider annual MRI starting at age 40 or 5-10 years before the earliest known breast cancer in the family (whichever comes first). 

Finally, women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^4,15,16 with risk similar in magnitude to pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2  carriers. These women are also recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.

Currently the Tyrer-Cuzick Model (IBIS) version 817 and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models¹⁸ include breast density in risk calculations; the Gail, Penn II, and Claus models do not include breast density. 

Adding polygenic risk scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms to traditional comprehensive risk models such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model has been shown to improve model performance.¹⁹ In addition, artificial intelligence is being used to identify textural and other findings beyond breast density on mammograms that predict increased risk. Such information, which is complementary to the Tyrer-Cuzick model (v.8),²⁰ has more accurately identified high-risk patients than the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model and prior deep learning models.²¹ 

In a study from the Karolinska Institute, a model that included computer-aided detection of microcalcifications and masses in addition to other traditional risk factors (including breast density) successfully identified women who would develop interval or advanced cancer in the 2 years after a normal mammogram and improved short-term (2-to-3-year) risk assessment over TyrerCuzick (v.7) or Gail models.²² This model proved more accurate than traditional risk models and can augment genetic/family history to help identify women who should and, importantly, who should not, have supplemental screening after 2D mammography. Risk models that include detailed family history should be used rather than the Gail model to identify women who meet high risk criteria for MRI screening. Research also supports the benefits of MRI in women with dense breasts who are not otherwise considered “high risk,” and while not widely available, lower cost, abbreviated MRI protocols have been validated for all women with dense breasts.²³ For more details on risk models, including a risk models table with live links to commonly used breast cancer risk assessment tools, visit https://densebreast-info .org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/. ●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B.  The Gail risk model^1-3 is used to predict 5-year and lifetime risks of developing invasive breast cancer, and to identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications such as tamoxifen. The Gail model should not be used to determine risk for purposes of screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)⁴ (or genetic testing).

Breast cancer risk models are used to stratify patients into risk categories to facilitate personalized screening and surveillance plans for clinical management. Several breast cancer risk assessment tools have been developed that include different combinations of known risk factors and are used for the following purposes: 

1. To identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications. The Gail model is used to determine risk for purposes of advising on use of risk-reducing medications. Any woman with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% by the Gail model may be considered for treatment with tamoxifen (pre or postmenopausal), raloxifene (postmenopausal), or aromatase inhibitors (postmenopausal).⁵  

In the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P1 study,⁶ women at increased risk for breast cancer were defined as follows: 

• age 35 to 59 years with at least a 1.66% 5-year risk for developing breast cancer by the Gail model
• personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)
• age over 60 years.

More than 13,000 such women were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or placebo daily for 5 years. Tamoxifen reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49% and reduced the risk of noninvasive cancer by 50% compared with placebo. The reduced risk of breast cancer was only seen for estrogen-receptor–expressing tumors. There was a 2.5-fold increase in risk of endometrial cancer in women taking tamoxifen and a decrease in hip and spine fracture risk. Blood clots causing stroke and deep vein thrombosis are increased in women taking tamoxifen.^7,8

2. To identify women who may carry a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Some models (eg, Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS],⁹ Penn II,¹⁰ BOADICEA,¹¹ and BRCAPRO¹²) estimate the probability of a BRCA1/2 mutation; however, most testing guidelines are now criterion based (eg, National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) as opposed to probability based. In practical terms, clinical decision making around genetic testing is rarely based on a priori probabilities. 

3.  To identify women who meet criteria for high-risk screening MRI. Current American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines⁴ recommend annual screening MRI, in addition to mammography, beginning by age 25 to 30 in women who have a lifetime risk of breast cancer ≥20%. Any of the models used to predict risk of a pathogenic mutation (Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS], Penn II, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO),or the Claus model,¹³ but not the Gail model, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for purposes of screening MRI guidelines. The ACS and NCCN guidelines specifically recommend against using the Gail model to determine risk for purposes of MRI screening or risk of pathogenic mutation, as it does not include detailed family history such as age at diagnosis or second-degree relatives. 

ACS and NCCN guidelines also recommend annual screening MRI beginning by age 25, with the addition of mammography beginning at age 30, in women who are known to carry pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy), and in women who are first-degree relatives of known mutation carriers but who are themselves untested.¹⁴ 

Women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Cowden syndrome, Neurofibromatosis type 1, or Fanconi anemia) are also recommended for annual screening MRI beginning between ages 20-35, depending on the mutation.¹⁴ Women with known pathogenic mutations in ATM, CHEK2, or NBN should consider annual MRI starting at age 40 or 5-10 years before the earliest known breast cancer in the family (whichever comes first). 

Finally, women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^4,15,16 with risk similar in magnitude to pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2  carriers. These women are also recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.

Currently the Tyrer-Cuzick Model (IBIS) version 817 and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models¹⁸ include breast density in risk calculations; the Gail, Penn II, and Claus models do not include breast density. 

Adding polygenic risk scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms to traditional comprehensive risk models such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model has been shown to improve model performance.¹⁹ In addition, artificial intelligence is being used to identify textural and other findings beyond breast density on mammograms that predict increased risk. Such information, which is complementary to the Tyrer-Cuzick model (v.8),²⁰ has more accurately identified high-risk patients than the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model and prior deep learning models.²¹ 

In a study from the Karolinska Institute, a model that included computer-aided detection of microcalcifications and masses in addition to other traditional risk factors (including breast density) successfully identified women who would develop interval or advanced cancer in the 2 years after a normal mammogram and improved short-term (2-to-3-year) risk assessment over TyrerCuzick (v.7) or Gail models.²² This model proved more accurate than traditional risk models and can augment genetic/family history to help identify women who should and, importantly, who should not, have supplemental screening after 2D mammography. Risk models that include detailed family history should be used rather than the Gail model to identify women who meet high risk criteria for MRI screening. Research also supports the benefits of MRI in women with dense breasts who are not otherwise considered “high risk,” and while not widely available, lower cost, abbreviated MRI protocols have been validated for all women with dense breasts.²³ For more details on risk models, including a risk models table with live links to commonly used breast cancer risk assessment tools, visit https://densebreast-info .org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/. ●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

B.  The Gail risk model^1-3 is used to predict 5-year and lifetime risks of developing invasive breast cancer, and to identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications such as tamoxifen. The Gail model should not be used to determine risk for purposes of screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)⁴ (or genetic testing).

Breast cancer risk models are used to stratify patients into risk categories to facilitate personalized screening and surveillance plans for clinical management. Several breast cancer risk assessment tools have been developed that include different combinations of known risk factors and are used for the following purposes: 

1. To identify women who may benefit from risk-reducing medications. The Gail model is used to determine risk for purposes of advising on use of risk-reducing medications. Any woman with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% by the Gail model may be considered for treatment with tamoxifen (pre or postmenopausal), raloxifene (postmenopausal), or aromatase inhibitors (postmenopausal).⁵  

In the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P1 study,⁶ women at increased risk for breast cancer were defined as follows: 

• age 35 to 59 years with at least a 1.66% 5-year risk for developing breast cancer by the Gail model
• personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)
• age over 60 years.

More than 13,000 such women were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or placebo daily for 5 years. Tamoxifen reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49% and reduced the risk of noninvasive cancer by 50% compared with placebo. The reduced risk of breast cancer was only seen for estrogen-receptor–expressing tumors. There was a 2.5-fold increase in risk of endometrial cancer in women taking tamoxifen and a decrease in hip and spine fracture risk. Blood clots causing stroke and deep vein thrombosis are increased in women taking tamoxifen.^7,8

2. To identify women who may carry a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Some models (eg, Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS],⁹ Penn II,¹⁰ BOADICEA,¹¹ and BRCAPRO¹²) estimate the probability of a BRCA1/2 mutation; however, most testing guidelines are now criterion based (eg, National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) as opposed to probability based. In practical terms, clinical decision making around genetic testing is rarely based on a priori probabilities. 

3.  To identify women who meet criteria for high-risk screening MRI. Current American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines⁴ recommend annual screening MRI, in addition to mammography, beginning by age 25 to 30 in women who have a lifetime risk of breast cancer ≥20%. Any of the models used to predict risk of a pathogenic mutation (Tyrer-Cuzick [IBIS], Penn II, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO),or the Claus model,¹³ but not the Gail model, can be used to estimate lifetime risk for purposes of screening MRI guidelines. The ACS and NCCN guidelines specifically recommend against using the Gail model to determine risk for purposes of MRI screening or risk of pathogenic mutation, as it does not include detailed family history such as age at diagnosis or second-degree relatives. 

ACS and NCCN guidelines also recommend annual screening MRI beginning by age 25, with the addition of mammography beginning at age 30, in women who are known to carry pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (unless the woman has had bilateral mastectomy), and in women who are first-degree relatives of known mutation carriers but who are themselves untested.¹⁴ 

Women who are known to carry or are first-degree untested relatives of individuals with less common disease-causing mutations (such as those associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Cowden syndrome, Neurofibromatosis type 1, or Fanconi anemia) are also recommended for annual screening MRI beginning between ages 20-35, depending on the mutation.¹⁴ Women with known pathogenic mutations in ATM, CHEK2, or NBN should consider annual MRI starting at age 40 or 5-10 years before the earliest known breast cancer in the family (whichever comes first). 

Finally, women with prior chest radiation therapy (such as for Hodgkin disease) between ages 10 and 30 are at high risk for developing breast cancer,^4,15,16 with risk similar in magnitude to pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2  carriers. These women are also recommended for annual screening MRI starting at age 25 or 8 years after the chest radiation therapy, whichever is later.

Currently the Tyrer-Cuzick Model (IBIS) version 817 and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models¹⁸ include breast density in risk calculations; the Gail, Penn II, and Claus models do not include breast density. 

Adding polygenic risk scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms to traditional comprehensive risk models such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model has been shown to improve model performance.¹⁹ In addition, artificial intelligence is being used to identify textural and other findings beyond breast density on mammograms that predict increased risk. Such information, which is complementary to the Tyrer-Cuzick model (v.8),²⁰ has more accurately identified high-risk patients than the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model and prior deep learning models.²¹ 

In a study from the Karolinska Institute, a model that included computer-aided detection of microcalcifications and masses in addition to other traditional risk factors (including breast density) successfully identified women who would develop interval or advanced cancer in the 2 years after a normal mammogram and improved short-term (2-to-3-year) risk assessment over TyrerCuzick (v.7) or Gail models.²² This model proved more accurate than traditional risk models and can augment genetic/family history to help identify women who should and, importantly, who should not, have supplemental screening after 2D mammography. Risk models that include detailed family history should be used rather than the Gail model to identify women who meet high risk criteria for MRI screening. Research also supports the benefits of MRI in women with dense breasts who are not otherwise considered “high risk,” and while not widely available, lower cost, abbreviated MRI protocols have been validated for all women with dense breasts.²³ For more details on risk models, including a risk models table with live links to commonly used breast cancer risk assessment tools, visit https://densebreast-info .org/for-providers/risk-model-tutorial/. ●

Sips of pickle juice may be all it takes to lessen the severity of muscle cramps in adults with cirrhosis, according to results of the PICCLES randomized controlled trial.

In the trial, patients with cirrhotic cramps who sipped pickle brine at the onset of a muscle cramp saw a significant decrease in cramp severity relative to peers who sipped tap water when the cramp hit.

“The acid (vinegar) in the brine triggers a nerve reflex to stop the cramp when it hits the throat. This is why only a sip is needed,” lead investigator Elliot Tapper, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. The study was published online April 13 in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Common and bothersome

Cramps are common in adults with cirrhosis, irrespective of disease severity. They can sometimes last for hours, and treatment options are limited.

In a prior study, 1 tablespoon of pickle juice rapidly stopped experimentally induced cramps.

“This is something that athletes use, and kidney doctors often recommend to their patients, so it is nothing unique to cirrhosis,” Dr. Tapper said.

The PICCLES trial involved 74 adults (mean age, 56.6 years) with at least 4 muscle cramps in the prior month. In the cohort, 54% were men, and 41% had ascites.

The median cramp frequency was 11-12 per month, with an average cramp severity of more than 4 out of 10 on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for cramps. 

Some patients were receiving medications for their cramps at baseline, such as magnesium, potassium, baclofen, vitamin E, taurine, and gabapentin/pregabalin.

Thirty-eight patients were randomly allocated to sip pickle juice and 36 to sip tap water at the onset of a muscle cramp.

The proportion of cramps treated was similar in the pickle juice and tap water groups (77% and 72%). More patients in the pickle juice group said their cramps were aborted by the intervention (69% vs. 40%).

The primary outcome was the change in cramp severity at 28-days VAS for cramps. Cramps were assessed 10 times over 28 days using interactive text messages.

Pickle juice was associated with a larger average reduction in cramp severity than tap water (–2.25 points vs. –0.36 on the VAS-cramps), a difference that was statistically significant (P = .03).

There were no significant changes in the proportion of days with cramp severity of more than 5 on the VAS, or on sleep quality or health-related quality of life. 

Because pickle juice contains sodium, the researchers also assessed weight change as a safety outcome. They found no significant differences in weight change between the two groups overall or in the subset with ascites.

Pickle juice is a “safe option that can stop painful cramps,” Dr. Tapper said in an interview, but was “disheartened” that it did not improve quality of life.

Dr. Tapper encourages patients with cramps to ask their doctor about pickle juice and doctors to ask their patients about muscle cramps.

“Awareness of a patient’s cramps is often lacking. Asking about cramps is not routine but could be the most important advance relating to this study,” he said.

While sips of pickle juice are “unlikely to cause harm,” Dr. Tapper said, he is “a little nervous about advising patients to address their complex needs alone. [Doctors] are there to think through the root causes and help make adjustments that could prevent the cramps in the first place,” he said.
 

Outside experts weigh in

This news organization reached out to several outside experts for their perspective on the study.

Nancy Reau, MD, professor of internal medicine, associate director of solid organ transplantation, and section chief of hepatology. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, noted that interventions to manage and prevent muscle cramps are “important, as cramping is common in cirrhosis and strongly affects quality of life.”

Dr. Reau cautioned that while pickle juice “sounds benign, it does have a lot of salt. Despite the salt content, this study didn’t show any difference between patients with and without ascites.

“However, cramping is more common in our patients with sarcopenia and those on diuretics for fluid management and it would be easy to see how this might impact fluid management,” Dr. Reau noted.

“Given that it is the acid (not the salt) in the pickle juice, there might be low salt alternatives,” Dr. Reau said.

Echoing Dr. Reau, Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., noted that “overuse of pickle juice could place patients at risk of developing high blood pressure and fluid overload, and pickle juice should be included in the sodium restriction guidance given to patients with high blood pressure and heart failure.”

In this study, however, the individual dose consumed was low, Dr. Shah noted.

He said the study “elegantly provides evidence to support the practice of sipping pickle juice for cramping.”

The authors should be “applauded for studying a simple solution with the most rigorous of methodologies, a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Shah added.  

“This simple treatment may be helpful to patients far beyond those with just cirrhosis, and expect future studies to explore this treatment in other populations,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases and Mandel Chair in Gastroenterology, University of Miami, noted that, while muscle cramps can have a major impact on quality of life, “in terms of some of the other complications of cirrhosis that health care providers are dealing with, they may seem relatively innocuous, but obviously patients have a slightly different interpretation because of the effect cramps can have on sleep and so on.

“There have been a variety of home remedies to treat muscle cramps, but this study is intriguing as it suggests that pickle juice, which is freely available, helps mitigate the severity of the cramps. However, it’s unclear whether it prevents cramps,” Dr. Martin said in an interview.

Given that the study is getting traction on Twitter, Dr. Martin encouraged health care providers to be aware of the study and prepared to answer questions from patients.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tapper has served as a consultant to Novartis, Axcella, and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has received unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. Dr. Reau, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Martin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sips of pickle juice may be all it takes to lessen the severity of muscle cramps in adults with cirrhosis, according to results of the PICCLES randomized controlled trial.

In the trial, patients with cirrhotic cramps who sipped pickle brine at the onset of a muscle cramp saw a significant decrease in cramp severity relative to peers who sipped tap water when the cramp hit.

“The acid (vinegar) in the brine triggers a nerve reflex to stop the cramp when it hits the throat. This is why only a sip is needed,” lead investigator Elliot Tapper, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. The study was published online April 13 in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Common and bothersome

Cramps are common in adults with cirrhosis, irrespective of disease severity. They can sometimes last for hours, and treatment options are limited.

In a prior study, 1 tablespoon of pickle juice rapidly stopped experimentally induced cramps.

“This is something that athletes use, and kidney doctors often recommend to their patients, so it is nothing unique to cirrhosis,” Dr. Tapper said.

The PICCLES trial involved 74 adults (mean age, 56.6 years) with at least 4 muscle cramps in the prior month. In the cohort, 54% were men, and 41% had ascites.

The median cramp frequency was 11-12 per month, with an average cramp severity of more than 4 out of 10 on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for cramps. 

Some patients were receiving medications for their cramps at baseline, such as magnesium, potassium, baclofen, vitamin E, taurine, and gabapentin/pregabalin.

Thirty-eight patients were randomly allocated to sip pickle juice and 36 to sip tap water at the onset of a muscle cramp.

The proportion of cramps treated was similar in the pickle juice and tap water groups (77% and 72%). More patients in the pickle juice group said their cramps were aborted by the intervention (69% vs. 40%).

The primary outcome was the change in cramp severity at 28-days VAS for cramps. Cramps were assessed 10 times over 28 days using interactive text messages.

Pickle juice was associated with a larger average reduction in cramp severity than tap water (–2.25 points vs. –0.36 on the VAS-cramps), a difference that was statistically significant (P = .03).

There were no significant changes in the proportion of days with cramp severity of more than 5 on the VAS, or on sleep quality or health-related quality of life. 

Because pickle juice contains sodium, the researchers also assessed weight change as a safety outcome. They found no significant differences in weight change between the two groups overall or in the subset with ascites.

Pickle juice is a “safe option that can stop painful cramps,” Dr. Tapper said in an interview, but was “disheartened” that it did not improve quality of life.

Dr. Tapper encourages patients with cramps to ask their doctor about pickle juice and doctors to ask their patients about muscle cramps.

“Awareness of a patient’s cramps is often lacking. Asking about cramps is not routine but could be the most important advance relating to this study,” he said.

While sips of pickle juice are “unlikely to cause harm,” Dr. Tapper said, he is “a little nervous about advising patients to address their complex needs alone. [Doctors] are there to think through the root causes and help make adjustments that could prevent the cramps in the first place,” he said.
 

Outside experts weigh in

This news organization reached out to several outside experts for their perspective on the study.

Nancy Reau, MD, professor of internal medicine, associate director of solid organ transplantation, and section chief of hepatology. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, noted that interventions to manage and prevent muscle cramps are “important, as cramping is common in cirrhosis and strongly affects quality of life.”

Dr. Reau cautioned that while pickle juice “sounds benign, it does have a lot of salt. Despite the salt content, this study didn’t show any difference between patients with and without ascites.

“However, cramping is more common in our patients with sarcopenia and those on diuretics for fluid management and it would be easy to see how this might impact fluid management,” Dr. Reau noted.

“Given that it is the acid (not the salt) in the pickle juice, there might be low salt alternatives,” Dr. Reau said.

Echoing Dr. Reau, Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., noted that “overuse of pickle juice could place patients at risk of developing high blood pressure and fluid overload, and pickle juice should be included in the sodium restriction guidance given to patients with high blood pressure and heart failure.”

In this study, however, the individual dose consumed was low, Dr. Shah noted.

He said the study “elegantly provides evidence to support the practice of sipping pickle juice for cramping.”

The authors should be “applauded for studying a simple solution with the most rigorous of methodologies, a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Shah added.  

“This simple treatment may be helpful to patients far beyond those with just cirrhosis, and expect future studies to explore this treatment in other populations,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases and Mandel Chair in Gastroenterology, University of Miami, noted that, while muscle cramps can have a major impact on quality of life, “in terms of some of the other complications of cirrhosis that health care providers are dealing with, they may seem relatively innocuous, but obviously patients have a slightly different interpretation because of the effect cramps can have on sleep and so on.

“There have been a variety of home remedies to treat muscle cramps, but this study is intriguing as it suggests that pickle juice, which is freely available, helps mitigate the severity of the cramps. However, it’s unclear whether it prevents cramps,” Dr. Martin said in an interview.

Given that the study is getting traction on Twitter, Dr. Martin encouraged health care providers to be aware of the study and prepared to answer questions from patients.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tapper has served as a consultant to Novartis, Axcella, and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has received unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. Dr. Reau, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Martin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sips of pickle juice may be all it takes to lessen the severity of muscle cramps in adults with cirrhosis, according to results of the PICCLES randomized controlled trial.

In the trial, patients with cirrhotic cramps who sipped pickle brine at the onset of a muscle cramp saw a significant decrease in cramp severity relative to peers who sipped tap water when the cramp hit.

“The acid (vinegar) in the brine triggers a nerve reflex to stop the cramp when it hits the throat. This is why only a sip is needed,” lead investigator Elliot Tapper, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization. The study was published online April 13 in American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Common and bothersome

Cramps are common in adults with cirrhosis, irrespective of disease severity. They can sometimes last for hours, and treatment options are limited.

In a prior study, 1 tablespoon of pickle juice rapidly stopped experimentally induced cramps.

“This is something that athletes use, and kidney doctors often recommend to their patients, so it is nothing unique to cirrhosis,” Dr. Tapper said.

The PICCLES trial involved 74 adults (mean age, 56.6 years) with at least 4 muscle cramps in the prior month. In the cohort, 54% were men, and 41% had ascites.

The median cramp frequency was 11-12 per month, with an average cramp severity of more than 4 out of 10 on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for cramps. 

Some patients were receiving medications for their cramps at baseline, such as magnesium, potassium, baclofen, vitamin E, taurine, and gabapentin/pregabalin.

Thirty-eight patients were randomly allocated to sip pickle juice and 36 to sip tap water at the onset of a muscle cramp.

The proportion of cramps treated was similar in the pickle juice and tap water groups (77% and 72%). More patients in the pickle juice group said their cramps were aborted by the intervention (69% vs. 40%).

The primary outcome was the change in cramp severity at 28-days VAS for cramps. Cramps were assessed 10 times over 28 days using interactive text messages.

Pickle juice was associated with a larger average reduction in cramp severity than tap water (–2.25 points vs. –0.36 on the VAS-cramps), a difference that was statistically significant (P = .03).

There were no significant changes in the proportion of days with cramp severity of more than 5 on the VAS, or on sleep quality or health-related quality of life. 

Because pickle juice contains sodium, the researchers also assessed weight change as a safety outcome. They found no significant differences in weight change between the two groups overall or in the subset with ascites.

Pickle juice is a “safe option that can stop painful cramps,” Dr. Tapper said in an interview, but was “disheartened” that it did not improve quality of life.

Dr. Tapper encourages patients with cramps to ask their doctor about pickle juice and doctors to ask their patients about muscle cramps.

“Awareness of a patient’s cramps is often lacking. Asking about cramps is not routine but could be the most important advance relating to this study,” he said.

While sips of pickle juice are “unlikely to cause harm,” Dr. Tapper said, he is “a little nervous about advising patients to address their complex needs alone. [Doctors] are there to think through the root causes and help make adjustments that could prevent the cramps in the first place,” he said.
 

Outside experts weigh in

This news organization reached out to several outside experts for their perspective on the study.

Nancy Reau, MD, professor of internal medicine, associate director of solid organ transplantation, and section chief of hepatology. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, noted that interventions to manage and prevent muscle cramps are “important, as cramping is common in cirrhosis and strongly affects quality of life.”

Dr. Reau cautioned that while pickle juice “sounds benign, it does have a lot of salt. Despite the salt content, this study didn’t show any difference between patients with and without ascites.

“However, cramping is more common in our patients with sarcopenia and those on diuretics for fluid management and it would be easy to see how this might impact fluid management,” Dr. Reau noted.

“Given that it is the acid (not the salt) in the pickle juice, there might be low salt alternatives,” Dr. Reau said.

Echoing Dr. Reau, Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., noted that “overuse of pickle juice could place patients at risk of developing high blood pressure and fluid overload, and pickle juice should be included in the sodium restriction guidance given to patients with high blood pressure and heart failure.”

In this study, however, the individual dose consumed was low, Dr. Shah noted.

He said the study “elegantly provides evidence to support the practice of sipping pickle juice for cramping.”

The authors should be “applauded for studying a simple solution with the most rigorous of methodologies, a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Shah added.  

“This simple treatment may be helpful to patients far beyond those with just cirrhosis, and expect future studies to explore this treatment in other populations,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases and Mandel Chair in Gastroenterology, University of Miami, noted that, while muscle cramps can have a major impact on quality of life, “in terms of some of the other complications of cirrhosis that health care providers are dealing with, they may seem relatively innocuous, but obviously patients have a slightly different interpretation because of the effect cramps can have on sleep and so on.

“There have been a variety of home remedies to treat muscle cramps, but this study is intriguing as it suggests that pickle juice, which is freely available, helps mitigate the severity of the cramps. However, it’s unclear whether it prevents cramps,” Dr. Martin said in an interview.

Given that the study is getting traction on Twitter, Dr. Martin encouraged health care providers to be aware of the study and prepared to answer questions from patients.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tapper has served as a consultant to Novartis, Axcella, and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has received unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. Dr. Reau, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Martin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

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

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

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

Difficult economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making an increasing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. Yet, many balk at the prospect of selling to private equity companies. I have received many inquiries about other protective options, such as merging two or more small practices into one larger entity.

Merging offers many benefits: Better overall management, centralized and efficient billing and collection, group purchasing discounts, and reduced overhead, among others; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential. If you are considering such an option, here are some things to think about.

You should begin with an evaluation and comparison of the separate groups’ respective finances. This should include a history of production, collections, overhead, and liabilities. Basically, you want to locate and identify all assets and liabilities that will be combined into the new group. One area of immediate importance is Medicare participation. Which members now currently participate and which do not? Since the new group will need to have a single position, all of the physicians must agree on that issue.

Who will be in charge? Not every physician is a qualified manager. The manager should be the physician who is willing to spend the time it takes to sign checks, interact with the administrator, and ensure that other matters such as filing tax returns and approving minor purchases arc carried out properly.

What is the compensation formula? Compensation arrangements should be based on each physician’s current financial data and the goals of the practice. Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination, so productivity is rewarded but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Which practices have a retirement plan and which do not? Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to insure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues. You may also have to address the problem of physicians who currently do not have a plan who, for whatever reason, may not want to be forced into making retirement plan contributions.

The often-problematic issue of employees and their salaries needs to be addressed, to decide which employees will be needed in the new group, and to determine a salary structure. Each practice’s policies related to vacation, sick leave, and other such issues should be reviewed, and an overall policy for the new group developed.

Other common sticking points are issues related to facilities. If the practices intend to consolidate into one location, the physicians must decide which of the specific assets of each practice will be contributed to the new entity. Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is hardly ever the case. Physicians whose assets are to be used generally want to be compensated, and those who have to dispose of or store assets are in a quandary. The solution to this predicament will vary depending on the circumstances of each merger. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. You must decide when a buyout would occur – usually in the event of retirement, death, disability, or withdrawal (voluntary or involuntary) – how the buyout amount will be calculated, and how it will be paid. Then, you must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. Remember that any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. I suggest having an actuary create a formula, so that the buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Noncompete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll discuss some other, more complicated merger options in my next column.

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

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

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

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

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

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

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

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

[email protected]