Key clinical point: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the left motor cortex shows significant prophylactic effects in patients with resistant chronic migraine (CM), including early and long-lasting beneficial effects after the stimulation period.

Major finding: The frequency of monthly migraine attacks reduced significantly in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group from the end of the first month (−21.0% vs. −1.5%; P = .019) to the end of 3-month follow-up (−31.9% vs. −5.6%; P = .011), with the rate of responders being significantly higher in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group at 3 months posttreatment (50% vs. 14%; P = .043).

Study details: Findings are from a patient-assessor–blinded trial including 36 patients with resistant CM who were randomly assigned to receive a-tDCS (n = 18) or sham a-tDCS (n = 18) over 2 months before a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hodaj H et al. Long-term prophylactic efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(2):441-453 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2022.02.012

Key clinical point: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the left motor cortex shows significant prophylactic effects in patients with resistant chronic migraine (CM), including early and long-lasting beneficial effects after the stimulation period.

Major finding: The frequency of monthly migraine attacks reduced significantly in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group from the end of the first month (−21.0% vs. −1.5%; P = .019) to the end of 3-month follow-up (−31.9% vs. −5.6%; P = .011), with the rate of responders being significantly higher in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group at 3 months posttreatment (50% vs. 14%; P = .043).

Study details: Findings are from a patient-assessor–blinded trial including 36 patients with resistant CM who were randomly assigned to receive a-tDCS (n = 18) or sham a-tDCS (n = 18) over 2 months before a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hodaj H et al. Long-term prophylactic efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(2):441-453 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2022.02.012

Key clinical point: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the left motor cortex shows significant prophylactic effects in patients with resistant chronic migraine (CM), including early and long-lasting beneficial effects after the stimulation period.

Major finding: The frequency of monthly migraine attacks reduced significantly in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group from the end of the first month (−21.0% vs. −1.5%; P = .019) to the end of 3-month follow-up (−31.9% vs. −5.6%; P = .011), with the rate of responders being significantly higher in the a-tDCS vs. sham a-tDCS group at 3 months posttreatment (50% vs. 14%; P = .043).

Study details: Findings are from a patient-assessor–blinded trial including 36 patients with resistant CM who were randomly assigned to receive a-tDCS (n = 18) or sham a-tDCS (n = 18) over 2 months before a 3-month posttreatment follow-up.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hodaj H et al. Long-term prophylactic efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(2):441-453 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2022.02.012

Key clinical point: Anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies were effective and safe over a 12-month treatment period in patients with treatment-resistant chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse.

Major finding: Among patients followed up for 12 months, a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days and Migraine Disability Assessment score was achieved by 36.4%-66.6% and 84.4%-100% of patients, respectively. No severe treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, monocentric, cohort study including 203 patients with CM (most also reporting medication overuse) who were resistant to ≥3 preventive treatments and commenced preventive therapy with erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any financial support. P Geppetti and FD Cesaris reported receiving personal fees and research grants from various sources along with serving as an advisory board member or founding scientist for some sources.

Source: Iannone LF et al. Long-term effectiveness of three anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant chronic migraine patients based on the MIDAS score. CNS Drugs. 2022;36:191-202 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s40263-021-00893-y

Key clinical point: Anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies were effective and safe over a 12-month treatment period in patients with treatment-resistant chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse.

Major finding: Among patients followed up for 12 months, a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days and Migraine Disability Assessment score was achieved by 36.4%-66.6% and 84.4%-100% of patients, respectively. No severe treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, monocentric, cohort study including 203 patients with CM (most also reporting medication overuse) who were resistant to ≥3 preventive treatments and commenced preventive therapy with erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any financial support. P Geppetti and FD Cesaris reported receiving personal fees and research grants from various sources along with serving as an advisory board member or founding scientist for some sources.

Source: Iannone LF et al. Long-term effectiveness of three anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant chronic migraine patients based on the MIDAS score. CNS Drugs. 2022;36:191-202 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s40263-021-00893-y

Key clinical point: Anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies were effective and safe over a 12-month treatment period in patients with treatment-resistant chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse.

Major finding: Among patients followed up for 12 months, a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days and Migraine Disability Assessment score was achieved by 36.4%-66.6% and 84.4%-100% of patients, respectively. No severe treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, monocentric, cohort study including 203 patients with CM (most also reporting medication overuse) who were resistant to ≥3 preventive treatments and commenced preventive therapy with erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any financial support. P Geppetti and FD Cesaris reported receiving personal fees and research grants from various sources along with serving as an advisory board member or founding scientist for some sources.

Source: Iannone LF et al. Long-term effectiveness of three anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant chronic migraine patients based on the MIDAS score. CNS Drugs. 2022;36:191-202 (Feb 11). Doi: 10.1007/s40263-021-00893-y

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is unreliable for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences after resection, conclude the authors of a review of 48 patients at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, outside of Los Angeles.

Two ctDNA tests that are used for this purpose are already marketed in the United States: Signatera (Natera) and Reveal (Guardant Health).

This use of ctDNA has been catching on with oncologists in the United States, noted the authors. Such use is based on the premise that the test catches recurrences earlier than imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring, which is the standard approach recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Medical Oncology.

The review was published online on March 8, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The review included 48 patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer whose disease was in remission after curative-intent surgery. They were followed with CT imaging and CEA, as per NCCN guidelines, and with the Signatera ctDNA test from Natera.

The authors, led by Marwan Fakih, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at City of Hope, concluded that ctDNA “provides no definitive advantage compared with standard imaging and CEA measurement in the surveillance of patients with resected colorectal cancer.”

In fact, they suggested that clinicians “have taken a giant leap of faith by endorsing ctDNA assays as predictive and prognostic.” They noted that ongoing phase 3 trials are investigating the deescalation or even elimination of adjuvant chemotherapy, based on negative ctDNA results, as, for example, in a study reported recently at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“For now, ctDNA can be considered, if ... at all, as a complement to the standard approach recommended by the NCCN, but one must be cognizant of its limitations,” Dr. Fakih commented in a press release.

Asked for comment, Natera countered that its test is backed by “over a dozen peer-reviewed studies, with over 3,000 patients studied across multiple cancer types.” About the review, the company said that “small clinical experience studies are subject to limitations and variability.” It also emphasized that the company “has always supported the use of Signatera in combination with imaging,” not as a replacement.
 

Study details

Among the 49 patients included in the review, 15 experienced recurrence, but only eight of these patients had concurrent positive results on ctDNA.

Five of eight patients with lung recurrences were identified by CT imaging before the ctDNA test was positive or had persistently negative ctDNA results.

“A negative ctDNA finding is common in the setting of low-volume metastatic disease, especially in metastatic disease of the lung,” the investigators said.

Imaging plus CEA identified recurrences before ctDNA in seven cases, and it did so concurrently with ctDNA in four cases, yielding a sensitivity of 73.3% for recurrence versus 53.3% for ctDNA, but the finding wasn’t statistically significant, owing to the small number of patients.

The ctDNA test did identify five patients before imaging, but the investigators said it was “unlikely” that the finding changed treatment.

One patient had multiple lung metastases, and two patients had diffuse retroperitoneal disease, so none of the three were candidates for curative-intent surgery.

The other two patients did undergo surgery, but the investigators said they “would have arguably experienced a similar intervention if followed up by standard surveillance.”

The two retroperitoneal cases were positive on ctDNA for well over a year before recurrences showed up on imaging, which raises another point, commented the author of an accompanying commentary.

Discovering minimal residual disease (MRD) by “ctDNA before the site of recurrence can be localized” for surgery “does not open the window of opportunity. Instead ... patients receive bad news that is not actionable” and “might be harmed” by “learning of inevitable cancer recurrence with nothing to do but wait,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the commentary.

“If ctDNA can indeed detect MRD sooner than imaging, then interventional trials with molecular response as an end point are warranted to determine whether ctDNA detection is an actionable finding,” he said.

Dr. Fakih and associates noted that much of “the enthusiasm around these assays, particularly Signatera, was generated by a large observational surveillance trial” in Denmark that found that ctDNA identified disease recurrence an average of 8.7 months before CT imaging.

However, imaging was performed at 1 and 3 years, which they say is “considered substandard” in the United States and many European countries.

There was no funding for the review. Dr. Fakih has numerous ties with industry, including being a speaker for Guardant360; parent company Guardant Health markets a rival ctDNA test, Guardant Reveal. Dr. Fakih is also a speaker for Amgen and is an adviser for and/or receives institutional grants from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Venook has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is unreliable for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences after resection, conclude the authors of a review of 48 patients at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, outside of Los Angeles.

Two ctDNA tests that are used for this purpose are already marketed in the United States: Signatera (Natera) and Reveal (Guardant Health).

This use of ctDNA has been catching on with oncologists in the United States, noted the authors. Such use is based on the premise that the test catches recurrences earlier than imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring, which is the standard approach recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Medical Oncology.

The review was published online on March 8, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The review included 48 patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer whose disease was in remission after curative-intent surgery. They were followed with CT imaging and CEA, as per NCCN guidelines, and with the Signatera ctDNA test from Natera.

The authors, led by Marwan Fakih, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at City of Hope, concluded that ctDNA “provides no definitive advantage compared with standard imaging and CEA measurement in the surveillance of patients with resected colorectal cancer.”

In fact, they suggested that clinicians “have taken a giant leap of faith by endorsing ctDNA assays as predictive and prognostic.” They noted that ongoing phase 3 trials are investigating the deescalation or even elimination of adjuvant chemotherapy, based on negative ctDNA results, as, for example, in a study reported recently at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“For now, ctDNA can be considered, if ... at all, as a complement to the standard approach recommended by the NCCN, but one must be cognizant of its limitations,” Dr. Fakih commented in a press release.

Asked for comment, Natera countered that its test is backed by “over a dozen peer-reviewed studies, with over 3,000 patients studied across multiple cancer types.” About the review, the company said that “small clinical experience studies are subject to limitations and variability.” It also emphasized that the company “has always supported the use of Signatera in combination with imaging,” not as a replacement.
 

Study details

Among the 49 patients included in the review, 15 experienced recurrence, but only eight of these patients had concurrent positive results on ctDNA.

Five of eight patients with lung recurrences were identified by CT imaging before the ctDNA test was positive or had persistently negative ctDNA results.

“A negative ctDNA finding is common in the setting of low-volume metastatic disease, especially in metastatic disease of the lung,” the investigators said.

Imaging plus CEA identified recurrences before ctDNA in seven cases, and it did so concurrently with ctDNA in four cases, yielding a sensitivity of 73.3% for recurrence versus 53.3% for ctDNA, but the finding wasn’t statistically significant, owing to the small number of patients.

The ctDNA test did identify five patients before imaging, but the investigators said it was “unlikely” that the finding changed treatment.

One patient had multiple lung metastases, and two patients had diffuse retroperitoneal disease, so none of the three were candidates for curative-intent surgery.

The other two patients did undergo surgery, but the investigators said they “would have arguably experienced a similar intervention if followed up by standard surveillance.”

The two retroperitoneal cases were positive on ctDNA for well over a year before recurrences showed up on imaging, which raises another point, commented the author of an accompanying commentary.

Discovering minimal residual disease (MRD) by “ctDNA before the site of recurrence can be localized” for surgery “does not open the window of opportunity. Instead ... patients receive bad news that is not actionable” and “might be harmed” by “learning of inevitable cancer recurrence with nothing to do but wait,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the commentary.

“If ctDNA can indeed detect MRD sooner than imaging, then interventional trials with molecular response as an end point are warranted to determine whether ctDNA detection is an actionable finding,” he said.

Dr. Fakih and associates noted that much of “the enthusiasm around these assays, particularly Signatera, was generated by a large observational surveillance trial” in Denmark that found that ctDNA identified disease recurrence an average of 8.7 months before CT imaging.

However, imaging was performed at 1 and 3 years, which they say is “considered substandard” in the United States and many European countries.

There was no funding for the review. Dr. Fakih has numerous ties with industry, including being a speaker for Guardant360; parent company Guardant Health markets a rival ctDNA test, Guardant Reveal. Dr. Fakih is also a speaker for Amgen and is an adviser for and/or receives institutional grants from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Venook has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is unreliable for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences after resection, conclude the authors of a review of 48 patients at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, outside of Los Angeles.

Two ctDNA tests that are used for this purpose are already marketed in the United States: Signatera (Natera) and Reveal (Guardant Health).

This use of ctDNA has been catching on with oncologists in the United States, noted the authors. Such use is based on the premise that the test catches recurrences earlier than imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring, which is the standard approach recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Medical Oncology.

The review was published online on March 8, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The review included 48 patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer whose disease was in remission after curative-intent surgery. They were followed with CT imaging and CEA, as per NCCN guidelines, and with the Signatera ctDNA test from Natera.

The authors, led by Marwan Fakih, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at City of Hope, concluded that ctDNA “provides no definitive advantage compared with standard imaging and CEA measurement in the surveillance of patients with resected colorectal cancer.”

In fact, they suggested that clinicians “have taken a giant leap of faith by endorsing ctDNA assays as predictive and prognostic.” They noted that ongoing phase 3 trials are investigating the deescalation or even elimination of adjuvant chemotherapy, based on negative ctDNA results, as, for example, in a study reported recently at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“For now, ctDNA can be considered, if ... at all, as a complement to the standard approach recommended by the NCCN, but one must be cognizant of its limitations,” Dr. Fakih commented in a press release.

Asked for comment, Natera countered that its test is backed by “over a dozen peer-reviewed studies, with over 3,000 patients studied across multiple cancer types.” About the review, the company said that “small clinical experience studies are subject to limitations and variability.” It also emphasized that the company “has always supported the use of Signatera in combination with imaging,” not as a replacement.
 

Study details

Among the 49 patients included in the review, 15 experienced recurrence, but only eight of these patients had concurrent positive results on ctDNA.

Five of eight patients with lung recurrences were identified by CT imaging before the ctDNA test was positive or had persistently negative ctDNA results.

“A negative ctDNA finding is common in the setting of low-volume metastatic disease, especially in metastatic disease of the lung,” the investigators said.

Imaging plus CEA identified recurrences before ctDNA in seven cases, and it did so concurrently with ctDNA in four cases, yielding a sensitivity of 73.3% for recurrence versus 53.3% for ctDNA, but the finding wasn’t statistically significant, owing to the small number of patients.

The ctDNA test did identify five patients before imaging, but the investigators said it was “unlikely” that the finding changed treatment.

One patient had multiple lung metastases, and two patients had diffuse retroperitoneal disease, so none of the three were candidates for curative-intent surgery.

The other two patients did undergo surgery, but the investigators said they “would have arguably experienced a similar intervention if followed up by standard surveillance.”

The two retroperitoneal cases were positive on ctDNA for well over a year before recurrences showed up on imaging, which raises another point, commented the author of an accompanying commentary.

Discovering minimal residual disease (MRD) by “ctDNA before the site of recurrence can be localized” for surgery “does not open the window of opportunity. Instead ... patients receive bad news that is not actionable” and “might be harmed” by “learning of inevitable cancer recurrence with nothing to do but wait,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the commentary.

“If ctDNA can indeed detect MRD sooner than imaging, then interventional trials with molecular response as an end point are warranted to determine whether ctDNA detection is an actionable finding,” he said.

Dr. Fakih and associates noted that much of “the enthusiasm around these assays, particularly Signatera, was generated by a large observational surveillance trial” in Denmark that found that ctDNA identified disease recurrence an average of 8.7 months before CT imaging.

However, imaging was performed at 1 and 3 years, which they say is “considered substandard” in the United States and many European countries.

There was no funding for the review. Dr. Fakih has numerous ties with industry, including being a speaker for Guardant360; parent company Guardant Health markets a rival ctDNA test, Guardant Reveal. Dr. Fakih is also a speaker for Amgen and is an adviser for and/or receives institutional grants from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Venook has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.
 

The path forward

Dr. Tariq and Dr. Looby agreed the next step in expanding our knowledge around HIV and menopause should be to better engage women with HIV in research and clinical care around their experience with menopause. This includes studies on the symptoms they regularly experience and how these symptoms affect their quality of life, including their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social health. These studies could also help researchers and clinicians understand what these women with HIV want for their menopause care, whether that be medication, psychotherapy, and/or peer support groups. These interventions, whether pharmaceutical based or not, can then be assessed based on outcomes in women with HIV, Dr. Tariq noted.

Another important factor is increasing education, on both the patient and provider side, Dr. Looby said. Many women may not know what menopause is, what symptoms look like, and how these hormonal changes can affect their health. If providers keep an open dialogue with female patients around menopause throughout their adult care, that can better prepare women for the menopause transition and alert them to common symptoms they may experience. There also is a great need for provider education, Dr. Looby added. Infectious disease specialists may need further education on menopause management, while women’s health specialists may need additional training for managing care for patients with HIV. Ideally, this information could be shared among a team of providers, including infectious disease, primary care, and women’s health specialists, so that clinicians can collaborate in prescribing treatment for women with HIV, Dr. Looby said.

Lastly, there needs to be more research funding allocated toward answering questions related to menopause and HIV, including the age of onset of menopause in women with HIV, the severity of symptoms, how HIV may influence the menopause transition and vice versa, and regarding the effectiveness of treatment – pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical – for women with HIV going through the menopause transition. “If we don’t have funding for these studies, then we won’t have answers to establish clinical care guidelines necessary to support the health, well-being, and quality of life of women with HIV,” Dr. Looby said.

And the number of women living with HIV entering menopause is expected to keep growing, Dr. King added. “It was only a couple of decades ago when women were being told they wouldn’t even live to experience menopause, and now we are at a point where this is the highest proportion of menopausal women ever that we have seen in our HIV clinics,” she said. “It speaks to the success of antiretrovirals,” Dr. King acknowledged, but that also means identifying new challenges and addressing recognized gaps in care.

“We are charting a new course, in some ways,” she added. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

Moderna on March 23 released interim results indicating that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine produced “robust” neutralizing antibody titers in children aged 6 months to 6 years – levels similar to those seen in adults.

Vaccine efficacy against infection was 43.7% in children aged 6 months to 2 years and 37.5% among children aged 2-6 years, the new data from its phase 2/3 KidCOVE study show.

The company explained the lower efficacy numbers by noting that its study involving these younger children was conducted during the Omicron wave. The same decrease in efficacy against infection was reported in adults during the Omicron surge.

A majority of COVID-19 cases were mild in the approximately 6,900 children aged 6 months to 6 years in the study. No severe COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths were reported.

The primary series of two 25-mcg doses of the vaccine given 28 days apart was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. For example, temperature greater than 38° C (>100.4° F) was reported for 17.0% of the 6-month-old to 2-year-old group and for 14.6% of the 2- to 6-year-old group. A few children, 0.2% of each group, experienced a temperature greater than 40° C (>104° F).

Moderna plans to include these response, efficacy, and safety data in an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine in these younger children in the coming weeks.

“We now have clinical data on the performance of our vaccine from infants 6 months of age through older adults,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a news release. He described the interim results as “good news for parents of children under 6 years of age.”
 

In other news

Moderna also announced that it began the FDA EUA submission process for a 50-μg two-dose primary series for children aged 6-12 years.

The company is also updating its EUA submission for a 100-mcg two-dose primary series for children and adolescents aged 12-18 years.

Similar to its booster research in adults, Moderna plans to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to 6 years, 6-12 years, and adolescents. The company is evaluating both a booster dose of mRNA-1273 and its bivalent booster candidate (mRNA1273.214), which includes an Omicron variant booster and mRNA-1273.

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

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The infants of obese pregnant women had a 55% higher adjusted perinatal death rate, compared with those of normal-weight pregnant women, but lower gestational age had a mediating effect, based on data from nearly 400,000 women-infant pairs.

“While some obesity-related causes of fetal death are known, the exact pathophysiology behind the effects of obesity on perinatal death are not completely understood,” Jeffrey N. Bone, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote. Higher body mass index prior to pregnancy also is associated with preterm delivery, but the effect of gestational age on the association between BMI and infant mortality has not been well explored.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, the researchers reviewed data from nearly 400,000 women obtained through the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, which collects obstetric and neonatal data from hospital charts and from delivery records of home births. Births at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and late pregnancy terminations were excluded.

BMI was based on self-reported prepregnancy height and weight; of the 392,820 included women, 12.8% were classified as obese, 20.6% were overweight, 60.6% were normal weight, and 6.0% were underweight. Infants of women with higher BMI had a lower gestational age at delivery. Perinatal mortality occurred in 1,834 pregnancies (0.5%). In adjusted analysis, infant perinatal death was significantly more likely for obese women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55) and overweight women (aOR, 1.22).

However, 63.1% of this association in obese women was mediated by gestational age of the infant at delivery, with aORs of 1.32 and 1.18 for natural indirect and natural direct effects, respectively, compared with that of normal-weight women. Similar, but lesser effects were noted for overweight women, with aORs of 1.11 and 1.10, respectively. “Direct effects were higher, and mediation was lower for stillbirth than for neonatal death, where the total effect was entirely indirect,” but the confidence intervals remained consistent with the primary analyses, the researchers noted.

The increased perinatal death rates of infants of obese and overweight women reflect data from previous studies, but the current study’s use of mediation analysis offers new insight on the mechanism by which perinatal death rates increase with higher maternal BMI, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the need to consider potential common risk factors for both perinatal death and early delivery that would be affected by maternal obesity, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of gestational age at stillbirth, which represents an approximation of fetal death in some cases, and the use of self-reports for prepregnancy maternal BMI.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based design and information on potential confounding variables, and suggest that early gestational age at delivery may play a role in maternal obesity-related perinatal death risk.

“To better inform the pregnancy management in obese women, further studies should continue to disentangle the causal pathways under which obesity increases the risk of perinatal death, including, for example, gestational diabetes and other obesity-related pregnancy complications,” they concluded.
 

More testing and counseling are needed

The current study is important because obesity rates continue to increase in the reproductive-age population, Marissa Platner, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Obesity has become a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically the risk of stillbirth and perinatal death. However, the authors correctly point out that the underlying cause of these perinatal deaths in women with obesity is unclear. Additionally, ACOG recently updated their clinical guidelines to recommend routine antenatal testing for women with obesity due to these increased rates of stillbirth.

“I was not surprised by these findings; similar to previous literature, the risks of perinatal death seem to have a dose-response relationship with increasing BMI. We know that women with prepregnancy obesity are also at higher risk of perinatal complications in the preterm period, which would increase the risk of perinatal death,” Dr. Platner said

“I think the take-home message for clinicians is twofold,” Dr. Platner said. First, “we need to take the updated antenatal testing guidelines from ACOG very seriously and implement these in our practices.” Second, “in the preconception or early antepartum period, these patients should be thoroughly counseled on the associated risks of pregnancy and discuss appropriate gestational weight gain guidelines and lifestyle modifications.”

However, “additional research is needed in a U.S. population with higher rates of obesity to determine the true effects of obesity on perinatal deaths and to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and disease processes that may lead to increased risk of both stillbirth and perinatal deaths,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

*This story was updated on March 23, 2022.

The study was supported by the Sick Kids Foundation and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.