MDedge ObGyn

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

Up to 10 different menopausal symptoms were linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when they were moderate to severe in women who initially had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, according to research presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

“The take-home message is that severe menopausal symptoms may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” Matthew Nudy, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Institute at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview about his findings. “Physicians and patients should be aware of this association. Women with severe symptoms may be more likely to see their physician, and this would be an ideal time to have their cardiovascular risk assessed.”

Margaret Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University and at NYU Langone Health, noted that these findings lined up with other studies showing an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients who have more symptoms, especially hot flashes.

“Other recent studies showed that an increase in severity of hot flush is associated with worse blood vessel function, leading to heart disease,” Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “The next step that makes sense is to try to eliminate these symptoms and hope that, in turn, would lower cardiovascular disease and improve survival.”

The researchers compared menopausal symptoms with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in an observational cohort of 80,278 postmenopausal women for a median 8.2 years of follow-up. None of the women, all enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. They had an average age of 63 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.9 at baseline. Most participants were White (86.7%), with 7% being Black and 4.1% Hispanic. Cardiovascular disease was a composite outcome that included hospitalized myocardial infarction, definite silent myocardial infarction, coronary death, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery disease, and coronary revascularization.

The researchers used a four-item Likert scale (0-3) to assess the severity of 15 symptoms experienced within the past 4 weeks at baseline: “night sweats, hot flashes, waking up several times at night, joint pain or stiffness, headaches or migraines, vaginal or genital dryness, heart racing or skipping beats, breast tenderness, dizziness, tremors (shakes), feeling tired, forgetfulness, mood swings, [feeling] restless or fidgety, and difficulty concentrating.”

The associations were adjusted for the following covariates: race/ethnicity, blood pressure, education, smoking status, bilateral oophorectomy, menopausal hormone therapy use (never/past/current), sleep duration, statin use, history of high cholesterol, aspirin use, use of antihypertensives, treated diabetes, and family history of heart attack. Continuous variables included age, age at menopause, BMI, blood pressure, and physical activity levels. Because of the high number of multiple comparisons, the researchers also used a Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of spurious statistical significance.

The researchers found some clustering of symptoms. Among women who had at least two moderate or severe menopausal symptoms, more than half frequently woke up at night, had joint pain, or felt tired, the researchers reported. Those symptoms were also the most commonly reported ones overall. Younger women, between ages 50 and 59, were more likely than older women (60-79 years old) to experience vasomotor symptoms and all cognitive affective symptoms except forgetfulness.

The researchers identified 10 symptoms whose severity was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease. Compared to having no symptoms at all, the following moderate or severe symptoms were associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event after adjustment for covariates and corrected for multiple comparisons: night sweats – a 19% increased risk (P = .03), waking up several times at night – 11% increased risk (P = .05), joint pain or stiffness – 27% increased risk (P < .001), heart racing or skipping beats – 55% increased risk (P < .001), dizziness – 34% increased risk (P < .001), feeling tired – 35% increased risk (P < .001), forgetfulness – 25% increased risk (P < .001), mood swings – 21% increased risk (P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety – 29% increased risk (P < .001), and difficulty concentrating – 31% increased risk (P < .001)

In addition, all-cause mortality was associated with these symptoms when they were moderate or severe: heart racing or skipping beats (32% increased risk of all-cause mortality; hazard ratio, 1.32; P =.006), dizziness (HR, 1.58; P < .001), tremors (HR, 1.44; P < .001), feeling tired (HR, 1.26; P < .001), forgetfulness (HR, 1.29; P = .01), mood swings (HR, 1.35; P = .02), feeling restless or fidgety (HR, 1.35; P < .001), and difficulty concentrating (HR, 1.47; P < .001).

The symptom with the greatest association with all-cause mortality was dizziness, which was associated with an increased risk of 58% when rated moderate or severe. Any dizziness at all was linked to a 12% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with no dizziness. Machine learning with the LASSO method determined that the symptoms most predictive of cardiovascular disease were dizziness, heart racing, feeling tired, and joint pain. The symptoms most associated with all-cause mortality, based on the machine learning algorithm, were dizziness, tremors, and feeling tired.

Dr. Nudy said that their study did not look at mitigation strategies. “Women should discuss with their physician the best methods for cardiovascular risk reduction,” he said. He also cautioned that severe menopausal symptoms can also indicate other health conditions that may require investigation.

“It is certainly possible some symptoms may represent other medical conditions we were unable to control for and may not be directly related to menopause,” such as autoimmune diseases, endocrine abnormalities, or subclinical cardiovascular disease, he said. Additional limitations of the study included an older cohort and retrospective assessment of menopausal symptoms only at baseline. In addition, ”we did not assess the cardiovascular risk among women whose symptoms persisted versus resolved during the study period,” Dr. Nudy said.

Dr. Nachtigall said a key message is that people who are experiencing these symptoms should try to get treatment for them and attempt to alleviate them, hopefully reducing the risk of heart disease and death.

”Estrogen treatment is one excellent option for some individuals and should be considered in the appropriate person,” Dr. Nachtigall said. “If estrogen treatment is to be considered, it should be given closer to menopause, within the first 10 years after menopause and in younger individuals (under 59) at start.”

Dr. Nachtigall referred to the NAMS 2022 position statement concluding that, for healthy women within 10 years of menopause who have bothersome menopause symptoms, “the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh its risks, with fewer cardiovascular events in younger versus older women.”

”Menopause and having menopausal symptoms is an opportunity for clinicians and patients to have a conversation about appropriate individualized management options,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

Women may also be able to mitigate their cardiovascular risk with regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and getting adequate sleep, Dr. Nachtigall said. But these healthy behaviors may not adequately treat moderate or severe menopausal symptoms.

“Some health care providers have said that because menopause happens naturally, individuals should just accept the symptoms and try to wait it out and not get treatment, but this study, as well as others, makes it clear that it actually may be beneficial to treat the symptoms,” Dr. Nachtigall said.

The research used no external funding. Dr. Nudy and Dr. Nachtigall had no disclosures.

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of “reproductive rheumatology” has received growing attention in recent years as we learn more about how autoimmune rheumatic diseases and their treatment affect women of reproductive age. In 2020, the American College of Rheumatology published a comprehensive guideline that includes recommendations and supporting evidence for managing issues related to reproductive health in patients with rheumatic diseases and has since launched an ongoing Reproductive Health Initiative, with the goal of translating established guidelines into practice through various education and awareness campaigns. One area addressed by the guideline that comes up commonly in practice but receives less attention and research is the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Literature is conflicting regarding whether patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases are inherently at increased risk for infertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected intercourse, or subfertility, defined as a delay in conception. Regardless, several factors indirectly contribute to a disproportionate risk for infertility or subfertility in this patient population, including active inflammatory disease, reduced ovarian reserve, and medications.

Patients with subfertility or infertility who desire pregnancy may pursue ovulation induction with timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with either embryo transfer, or gestational surrogacy. Those who require treatment with cyclophosphamide or who plan to defer pregnancy for whatever reason can opt for oocyte cryopreservation (colloquially known as “egg freezing”). For IVF and oocyte cryopreservation, controlled ovarian stimulation is typically the first step (except in unstimulated, or “natural cycle,” IVF).

Various protocols are used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation induction, the nuances of which are beyond the scope of this article. In general, ovarian stimulation involves gonadotropin therapy (follicle-stimulating hormone and/or human menopausal gonadotropin) administered via scheduled subcutaneous injections to stimulate follicular growth, as well as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists to suppress luteinizing hormone, preventing ovulation. Adjunctive oral therapy (clomiphene citrate or letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor) may be used as well. The patient has frequent lab monitoring of hormone levels and transvaginal ultrasounds to measure follicle number and size and, when the timing is right, receives an “ovulation trigger” – either human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist, depending on the protocol. At this point, transvaginal ultrasound–guided egg retrieval is done under sedation. Recovered oocytes are then either frozen for later use or fertilized in the lab for embryo transfer. Lastly, exogenous hormones are often used: estrogen to support frozen embryo transfers and progesterone for so-called luteal phase support.

ART is not contraindicated in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but there may be additional factors to consider, particularly for those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without clinical APS.

Ovarian stimulation elevates estrogen levels to varying degrees depending on the patient and the medications used. In all cases, though, peak levels are significantly lower than levels reached during pregnancy. It is well established that elevated estrogen – whether from hormone therapies or pregnancy – significantly increases thrombotic risk, even in healthy people. High-risk patients should receive low-molecular-weight heparin – a prophylactic dose for patients with either positive aPL without clinical APS (including those with SLE) or with obstetric APS, and a therapeutic dose for those with thrombotic APS – during ART procedures.

In patients with SLE, another concern is that increased estrogen will cause disease flare. One case series published in 2017 reported 37 patients with SLE and/or APS who underwent 97 IVF cycles, of which 8% were complicated by flare or thrombotic events. Notably, half of these complications occurred in patients who stopped prescribed therapies (immunomodulatory therapy in two patients with SLE, anticoagulation in two patients with APS) after failure to conceive. In a separate study from 2000 including 19 patients with SLE, APS, or high-titer aPL who underwent 68 IVF cycles, 19% of cycles in patients with SLE were complicated by flare, and no thrombotic events occurred in the cohort. The authors concluded that ovulation induction does not exacerbate SLE or APS. In these studies, the overall pregnancy rates were felt to be consistent with those achieved by the general population through IVF. Although obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and preterm delivery, were reported in about half of the pregnancies described, these are known to occur more frequently in those with SLE and APS, especially when active disease or other risk factors are present. There are no large-scale, controlled studies evaluating ART outcomes in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases to date.

Finally, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an increasingly rare but severe complication of ovarian stimulation. OHSS is characterized by capillary leak, fluid overload, and cytokine release syndrome and can lead to thromboembolic events. Comorbidities like hypertension and renal failure, which can go along with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, are risk factors for OHSS. The use of human chorionic gonadotropin to trigger ovulation is also associated with an increased risk for OHSS, so a GnRH agonist trigger may be preferable.

The ACR guideline recommends that individuals with any of these underlying conditions undergo ART only in expert centers. The ovarian stimulation protocol needs to be tailored to the individual patient to minimize risk and optimize outcomes. The overall goal when managing patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during ART is to establish and maintain disease control with pregnancy-compatible medications (when pregnancy is the goal). With adequate planning, appropriate treatment, and collaboration between obstetricians and rheumatologists, individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases can safely pursue ART and go on to have successful pregnancies.

Dr. Siegel is a 2022-2023 UCB Women’s Health rheumatology fellow in the rheumatology reproductive health program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Her clinical and research focus is on reproductive health issues in individuals with rheumatic disease. Dr. Chan is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for a monthly rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice. Follow Dr Chan on Twitter. Dr. Siegel and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article – an editorial collaboration between Medscape and the Hospital for Special Surgery – first appeared on Medscape.com.

For those affected, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are sometimes stressful. However, even an informative discussion about risk factors and the imparting of behavioral recommendations can be very helpful for many women. Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered once all nonantibiotic therapy options have been exhausted.

One in seven women suffers at least once a year from cystitis. Around a third of those women develop a further urinary tract infection 6-12 months after the first infection. A urinary tract infection is classified as recurrent if two symptomatic episodes have occurred within the last 6 months or if three episodes have occurred within the last 12 months.

There are many different approaches to reducing the recurrence rate of urinary tract infections, Daniel Klussmann and Florian Wagenlehner, MD, of the department and outpatient clinic for urology at the University of Giessen (Germany) wrote in DMW Klinischer Fortschritt. Aside from general information and advice, nonantibiotic therapy options are particularly important for recurrence reduction, with the aim of preventing the development of resistance and the corresponding adverse effects of antibiotics.
 

Fluids and D-mannose

An individual consultation discussion is the most important nonantibiotic strategy. Studies have shown that this strategy alone can lower the frequency of recurrent UTIs. According to the authors, special education programs on the causes and behavioral measures are especially helpful. Included in these programs is the recommendation to drink a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of fluids: approximately 1.5 liters per day. In one randomized study, this level of consumption halved UTI frequency. However, drinking an excessive amount of fluids should also be avoided, otherwise the antimicrobial peptides present in the urine become overly diluted.

The regular consumption of fruit juice, especially of that from berries, is also beneficial, according to the authors. However, study results on long-term prevention using cranberry products are inconsistent, and they are not recommended in the updated guideline. Like cranberries, D-mannose also inhibits the fimbriae of the Escherichia coli bacteria and therefore the bacteria’s ability to bind to the bladder epithelium. The authors cite a study in which, following the intake of 2 g of D-mannose dissolved in a glass of water every day, the rate of urinary tract infections dropped significantly, compared with consumption of placebo.

Additional recommendations in the S3 guideline include various phytotherapeutic products such as bearberry leaves, nasturtium herb, or horseradish root, although studies on the comparability of phytotherapeutic agents are very difficult to execute, the authors conceded.

It is already known that there is a positive correlation (by a factor of 60) between the recurrence rate of UTIs and the frequency of sexual intercourse. Even with contraceptive methods (such as vaginal suppositories, diaphragms or condoms coated with spermicide, and intrauterine devices), the risk of urinary tract infections increases by a factor of 2-14. Sexual abstinence, even if temporary, can be a remedy. Evidence for the recommendation to urinate immediately after coitus is contradictory in the literature, however. Excessive intimate hygiene clearly damages the local protective environment.
 

Estrogen substitution beneficial

For postmenopausal women, there is also the option of local estriol substitution (0.5 mg/day) as another nonantibiotic method of prophylaxis. This treatment serves as therapy for vaginal atrophy and reduces both vaginal colonization with uropathogens and the vaginal pH level. The authors cite Scandinavian studies that detected no increase in the risk of breast cancer from the local application of estriol.

Furthermore, the current guidelines recommend oral immunostimulation with bacterial cell wall components from uropathogenic strains of E. coli (OM-89, Uro-Vaxom). The authors reported on two meta-studies in which the average recurrence rate was reduced by 39%, compared with placebo. In addition, the treatment time for breakthrough infections decreased significantly, and prevention with OM-89 could even be started during acute therapy. Also recommended is parenteral immunostimulation with inactivated pathogens (StroVac). Acupuncture as cutaneous immunostimulation has also displayed a positive protective effect.

Only when nonantibiotic therapy fails and the patient is under a high amount of psychological strain should antibiotic prophylaxis be initiated, according to the authors. A period of 3-6 months should be the target here. When choosing an antibiotic and before starting therapy, the corresponding pathogen should be confirmed through a urine culture, and resistance testing should be performed. On the other hand, single-use, postcoital antibiotic prevention could be an alternative, particularly for women in whom a correlation between recurrent UTIs and sexual intercourse has been suspected, the authors wrote.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

For those affected, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are sometimes stressful. However, even an informative discussion about risk factors and the imparting of behavioral recommendations can be very helpful for many women. Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered once all nonantibiotic therapy options have been exhausted.

One in seven women suffers at least once a year from cystitis. Around a third of those women develop a further urinary tract infection 6-12 months after the first infection. A urinary tract infection is classified as recurrent if two symptomatic episodes have occurred within the last 6 months or if three episodes have occurred within the last 12 months.

There are many different approaches to reducing the recurrence rate of urinary tract infections, Daniel Klussmann and Florian Wagenlehner, MD, of the department and outpatient clinic for urology at the University of Giessen (Germany) wrote in DMW Klinischer Fortschritt. Aside from general information and advice, nonantibiotic therapy options are particularly important for recurrence reduction, with the aim of preventing the development of resistance and the corresponding adverse effects of antibiotics.
 

Fluids and D-mannose

An individual consultation discussion is the most important nonantibiotic strategy. Studies have shown that this strategy alone can lower the frequency of recurrent UTIs. According to the authors, special education programs on the causes and behavioral measures are especially helpful. Included in these programs is the recommendation to drink a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of fluids: approximately 1.5 liters per day. In one randomized study, this level of consumption halved UTI frequency. However, drinking an excessive amount of fluids should also be avoided, otherwise the antimicrobial peptides present in the urine become overly diluted.

The regular consumption of fruit juice, especially of that from berries, is also beneficial, according to the authors. However, study results on long-term prevention using cranberry products are inconsistent, and they are not recommended in the updated guideline. Like cranberries, D-mannose also inhibits the fimbriae of the Escherichia coli bacteria and therefore the bacteria’s ability to bind to the bladder epithelium. The authors cite a study in which, following the intake of 2 g of D-mannose dissolved in a glass of water every day, the rate of urinary tract infections dropped significantly, compared with consumption of placebo.

Additional recommendations in the S3 guideline include various phytotherapeutic products such as bearberry leaves, nasturtium herb, or horseradish root, although studies on the comparability of phytotherapeutic agents are very difficult to execute, the authors conceded.

It is already known that there is a positive correlation (by a factor of 60) between the recurrence rate of UTIs and the frequency of sexual intercourse. Even with contraceptive methods (such as vaginal suppositories, diaphragms or condoms coated with spermicide, and intrauterine devices), the risk of urinary tract infections increases by a factor of 2-14. Sexual abstinence, even if temporary, can be a remedy. Evidence for the recommendation to urinate immediately after coitus is contradictory in the literature, however. Excessive intimate hygiene clearly damages the local protective environment.
 

Estrogen substitution beneficial

For postmenopausal women, there is also the option of local estriol substitution (0.5 mg/day) as another nonantibiotic method of prophylaxis. This treatment serves as therapy for vaginal atrophy and reduces both vaginal colonization with uropathogens and the vaginal pH level. The authors cite Scandinavian studies that detected no increase in the risk of breast cancer from the local application of estriol.

Furthermore, the current guidelines recommend oral immunostimulation with bacterial cell wall components from uropathogenic strains of E. coli (OM-89, Uro-Vaxom). The authors reported on two meta-studies in which the average recurrence rate was reduced by 39%, compared with placebo. In addition, the treatment time for breakthrough infections decreased significantly, and prevention with OM-89 could even be started during acute therapy. Also recommended is parenteral immunostimulation with inactivated pathogens (StroVac). Acupuncture as cutaneous immunostimulation has also displayed a positive protective effect.

Only when nonantibiotic therapy fails and the patient is under a high amount of psychological strain should antibiotic prophylaxis be initiated, according to the authors. A period of 3-6 months should be the target here. When choosing an antibiotic and before starting therapy, the corresponding pathogen should be confirmed through a urine culture, and resistance testing should be performed. On the other hand, single-use, postcoital antibiotic prevention could be an alternative, particularly for women in whom a correlation between recurrent UTIs and sexual intercourse has been suspected, the authors wrote.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

For those affected, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) are sometimes stressful. However, even an informative discussion about risk factors and the imparting of behavioral recommendations can be very helpful for many women. Antibiotic prophylaxis should only be considered once all nonantibiotic therapy options have been exhausted.

One in seven women suffers at least once a year from cystitis. Around a third of those women develop a further urinary tract infection 6-12 months after the first infection. A urinary tract infection is classified as recurrent if two symptomatic episodes have occurred within the last 6 months or if three episodes have occurred within the last 12 months.

There are many different approaches to reducing the recurrence rate of urinary tract infections, Daniel Klussmann and Florian Wagenlehner, MD, of the department and outpatient clinic for urology at the University of Giessen (Germany) wrote in DMW Klinischer Fortschritt. Aside from general information and advice, nonantibiotic therapy options are particularly important for recurrence reduction, with the aim of preventing the development of resistance and the corresponding adverse effects of antibiotics.
 

Fluids and D-mannose

An individual consultation discussion is the most important nonantibiotic strategy. Studies have shown that this strategy alone can lower the frequency of recurrent UTIs. According to the authors, special education programs on the causes and behavioral measures are especially helpful. Included in these programs is the recommendation to drink a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of fluids: approximately 1.5 liters per day. In one randomized study, this level of consumption halved UTI frequency. However, drinking an excessive amount of fluids should also be avoided, otherwise the antimicrobial peptides present in the urine become overly diluted.

The regular consumption of fruit juice, especially of that from berries, is also beneficial, according to the authors. However, study results on long-term prevention using cranberry products are inconsistent, and they are not recommended in the updated guideline. Like cranberries, D-mannose also inhibits the fimbriae of the Escherichia coli bacteria and therefore the bacteria’s ability to bind to the bladder epithelium. The authors cite a study in which, following the intake of 2 g of D-mannose dissolved in a glass of water every day, the rate of urinary tract infections dropped significantly, compared with consumption of placebo.

Additional recommendations in the S3 guideline include various phytotherapeutic products such as bearberry leaves, nasturtium herb, or horseradish root, although studies on the comparability of phytotherapeutic agents are very difficult to execute, the authors conceded.

It is already known that there is a positive correlation (by a factor of 60) between the recurrence rate of UTIs and the frequency of sexual intercourse. Even with contraceptive methods (such as vaginal suppositories, diaphragms or condoms coated with spermicide, and intrauterine devices), the risk of urinary tract infections increases by a factor of 2-14. Sexual abstinence, even if temporary, can be a remedy. Evidence for the recommendation to urinate immediately after coitus is contradictory in the literature, however. Excessive intimate hygiene clearly damages the local protective environment.
 

Estrogen substitution beneficial

For postmenopausal women, there is also the option of local estriol substitution (0.5 mg/day) as another nonantibiotic method of prophylaxis. This treatment serves as therapy for vaginal atrophy and reduces both vaginal colonization with uropathogens and the vaginal pH level. The authors cite Scandinavian studies that detected no increase in the risk of breast cancer from the local application of estriol.

Furthermore, the current guidelines recommend oral immunostimulation with bacterial cell wall components from uropathogenic strains of E. coli (OM-89, Uro-Vaxom). The authors reported on two meta-studies in which the average recurrence rate was reduced by 39%, compared with placebo. In addition, the treatment time for breakthrough infections decreased significantly, and prevention with OM-89 could even be started during acute therapy. Also recommended is parenteral immunostimulation with inactivated pathogens (StroVac). Acupuncture as cutaneous immunostimulation has also displayed a positive protective effect.

Only when nonantibiotic therapy fails and the patient is under a high amount of psychological strain should antibiotic prophylaxis be initiated, according to the authors. A period of 3-6 months should be the target here. When choosing an antibiotic and before starting therapy, the corresponding pathogen should be confirmed through a urine culture, and resistance testing should be performed. On the other hand, single-use, postcoital antibiotic prevention could be an alternative, particularly for women in whom a correlation between recurrent UTIs and sexual intercourse has been suspected, the authors wrote.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

VIENNA – The production of estrogen in the thalamus appears to be curtailed by just one dose of nicotine, equivalent to that in a cigarette, reveals a whole brain analysis of healthy women in the first study of its kind.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.

The researchers performed both MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in 10 healthy women using a tracer that binds to aromatase, also known as estrogen synthase.

They found that, following an intranasal spray delivering 1 mg of nicotine, there was a significant reduction in estrogen synthase in both the right and left thalamus.

“For the first time, we can see that nicotine works to shut down the estrogen production mechanism in the brains of women,” said lead researcher Erika Comasco, PhD, department of neuroscience, Uppsala University, Sweden, in a release.

“We were surprised to see that this effect could be seen even with a single dose of nicotine, equivalent to just one cigarette, showing how powerful the effects of smoking are on a woman’s brain.”

Emphasizing the preliminary nature of the study and the need for a larger sample, she added: “We’re still not sure what the behavioral or cognitive outcomes are, only that nicotine acts on this area of the brain.

“However, we note that the affected brain system is a target for addictive drugs, such as nicotine.”

Previous research has revealed that women are less successful at quitting smoking than men, and appear to be more resistant to nicotine replacement therapy, and experience more relapses.

There is evidence to suggest that there is a complex interaction between sex and steroid hormones and the reward effect of nicotine, modulated by the dopaminergic system.

Moreover, women who smoke enter menopause earlier than nonsmokers, and have lower plasma estrogen levels, Dr. Camasco told this news organization.

Dr. Comasco explained that “besides its role in reproductive function and sexual behavior, estrogen has an impact on the brain wherever there are receptors, which is basically regions that are related to emotional regulation, cognitive function, and so on.”

Estrogen, she continued, has two main mechanisms of action, via dopaminergic and serotonergic signaling. However, levels of the hormone cannot be measured directly in the brain.

The researchers therefore turned to estrogen synthase, which regulates the synthesis of estrogen, and is highly expressed in the limbic system, a brain region associated with addiction.

Moreover, estrogen synthase levels can be measured in vivo, and previous animal studies have indicated that nicotine inhibits estrogen synthase.

To investigate its impact in humans, the researchers performed structural MRI and two ¹¹C-cetrozole PET scans in 10 healthy women.

The assessments were performed before and after the nasal administration of 1 mg of nicotine, the dose contained in one cigarette, via two sprays of a nasal spray each containing 0.5 mg of nicotine.

A whole brain analysis was then used to determine changes in nondisplaceable binding potential of ¹¹C-cetrozole to estrogen synthase between the two scans to indicate the availability of the enzyme at the two time points.

The results showed that, at baseline, high availability of estrogen synthase was observed in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala, with the highest levels in the right and left thalamus.

However, nicotine exposure was associated with a significant reduction in estrogen binding bilaterally in the thalamus when averaged across the participants (P < .01).

Region-of-interest analysis using within-individual voxel-wise comparison confirmed reduced estrogen synthase levels in both the right and left thalamus (P < .05), as well as in the subthalamic area.

Next, Dr. Comasco would like to test the impact of nicotine on estrogen synthase in men.

While men have lower levels of estrogen then women, “the reaction will take place anyway,” she said, although the “impact would be different.”

She would also like to look at the behavioral effects of reductions in estrogen synthase, and look at the effect of nicotine from a functional point of view.

Wim van den Brink, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and addiction at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, commented that this is an “important first finding.”

“Smoking has many adverse effects in men and in women, but this particular effect of nicotine on the reduction of estrogen production in women was not known before,” he added in the release.

However, he underlined that tobacco addition is a “complex disorder” and it is “unlikely that this specific effect of nicotine on the thalamus explains all the observed differences in the development, treatment, and outcomes between male and female smokers.”

“It is still a long way from a nicotine-induced reduction in estrogen production to a reduced risk of nicotine addiction and negative effects of treatment and relapse in female cigarette smokers, but this work merits further investigation,” Dr. van den Brink said.

The study was funded by the Science for Life Laboratory/Uppsala University.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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