MDedge ObGyn

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

How exquisitely designed is the human body? Despite our efforts to occasionally derail our health and well-being, our bodies come with helpful built-in protective functional barriers. The blood-brain barrier and the placenta are two examples. In basic terms, both restrict the free flow of substances from the systemic circulation and help prevent harmful substances from reaching the brain and the fetus, respectively. The placenta is unique in that it develops along with the fetus and, at delivery, is expelled after having done its work. But what happens when a disease or treatment alters the ability of the placenta to operate as a control gate for the fetus?

In keeping with this column’s title, let’s start with bugs. Based on the 2021 World Malaria Report, malaria continues to strike hardest against pregnant women and children in Africa.¹ In 2020 in 33 moderate- and high-transmission African countries, 34% of pregnancies (11.6 million of 33.8 million) were exposed to malaria infection. Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, including small for gestational age and preterm birth, which in turn increase the risk for neonatal and childhood mortality.

Malaria is caused by the parasite of the genus Plasmodium and is transmitted by infective female Anopheles mosquitoes. The predominant parasite in sub-Saharan Africa is Plasmodium falciparum. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Once a subject is bitten, the P. falciparum parasite is injected into the human blood stream where it is taken up initially by the liver and subsequently by the erythrocytes of the host which adhere to placental receptors, triggering placental inflammation and subsequent damage. This leads to impaired placental development and function, placental insufficiency, and the adverse birth outcomes identified above.² In targeting the placenta, this parasite can cause structural and functional placental alterations through infection and inflammation. A recent review by McColl et al. has shown that placental inflammation with or without infection affects the normal function of placental amino acid transporters, leading to similar adverse pregnancy outcomes.³

Moving on to drugs and drug safety in pregnancy, concern generally focuses on exposure during pregnancy that might directly affect the fetus at critical time windows during growth and development. There is a need to understand not only the size of the drug molecules and the degree to which they cross the placenta, but also how those medications may affect the development and function of the placenta itself. New research methods such as the “placenta-on-a-chip” that models the transport of nutrients and drugs allow direct evaluation of placental function.⁴ Assessing placental function using such tools during drug development will contribute to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of new medications for use in pregnancy, providing important information at the preclinical phases.⁵

The placenta is a dynamic organ with metabolic, endocrine, immunologic, and transport functions. Most importantly, it protects a healthy pregnancy. It also provides the advantage of immunologic protection to the fetus when maternal antibodies cross the placenta and provide initial protection until the newborn’s own immune system matures. Using our knowledge of placental alteration models and new research methods such as “placenta-on-a-chip” can help expand our understanding of the role of the placenta in medication safety in pregnancy.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, at Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Tassinari is a consultant and was formerly employed by Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Tassinari is a past president of BDRP (formerly the Teratology Society) and currently serves as a member of the External Science Advisory Committee for The Medicines for Malaria Venture and is a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry.

References

1. World malaria report 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

2. Chua CLL et al. Front Immunol. 2021;12:621382.

3. McColl ER et al. Drug Metab Dispos. May 2022.

4. Blundeli C et al. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018. January;7(2).

5. David AL et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022.

How exquisitely designed is the human body? Despite our efforts to occasionally derail our health and well-being, our bodies come with helpful built-in protective functional barriers. The blood-brain barrier and the placenta are two examples. In basic terms, both restrict the free flow of substances from the systemic circulation and help prevent harmful substances from reaching the brain and the fetus, respectively. The placenta is unique in that it develops along with the fetus and, at delivery, is expelled after having done its work. But what happens when a disease or treatment alters the ability of the placenta to operate as a control gate for the fetus?

In keeping with this column’s title, let’s start with bugs. Based on the 2021 World Malaria Report, malaria continues to strike hardest against pregnant women and children in Africa.¹ In 2020 in 33 moderate- and high-transmission African countries, 34% of pregnancies (11.6 million of 33.8 million) were exposed to malaria infection. Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, including small for gestational age and preterm birth, which in turn increase the risk for neonatal and childhood mortality.

Malaria is caused by the parasite of the genus Plasmodium and is transmitted by infective female Anopheles mosquitoes. The predominant parasite in sub-Saharan Africa is Plasmodium falciparum. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Once a subject is bitten, the P. falciparum parasite is injected into the human blood stream where it is taken up initially by the liver and subsequently by the erythrocytes of the host which adhere to placental receptors, triggering placental inflammation and subsequent damage. This leads to impaired placental development and function, placental insufficiency, and the adverse birth outcomes identified above.² In targeting the placenta, this parasite can cause structural and functional placental alterations through infection and inflammation. A recent review by McColl et al. has shown that placental inflammation with or without infection affects the normal function of placental amino acid transporters, leading to similar adverse pregnancy outcomes.³

Moving on to drugs and drug safety in pregnancy, concern generally focuses on exposure during pregnancy that might directly affect the fetus at critical time windows during growth and development. There is a need to understand not only the size of the drug molecules and the degree to which they cross the placenta, but also how those medications may affect the development and function of the placenta itself. New research methods such as the “placenta-on-a-chip” that models the transport of nutrients and drugs allow direct evaluation of placental function.⁴ Assessing placental function using such tools during drug development will contribute to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of new medications for use in pregnancy, providing important information at the preclinical phases.⁵

The placenta is a dynamic organ with metabolic, endocrine, immunologic, and transport functions. Most importantly, it protects a healthy pregnancy. It also provides the advantage of immunologic protection to the fetus when maternal antibodies cross the placenta and provide initial protection until the newborn’s own immune system matures. Using our knowledge of placental alteration models and new research methods such as “placenta-on-a-chip” can help expand our understanding of the role of the placenta in medication safety in pregnancy.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, at Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Tassinari is a consultant and was formerly employed by Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Tassinari is a past president of BDRP (formerly the Teratology Society) and currently serves as a member of the External Science Advisory Committee for The Medicines for Malaria Venture and is a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry.

References

1. World malaria report 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

2. Chua CLL et al. Front Immunol. 2021;12:621382.

3. McColl ER et al. Drug Metab Dispos. May 2022.

4. Blundeli C et al. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018. January;7(2).

5. David AL et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022.

How exquisitely designed is the human body? Despite our efforts to occasionally derail our health and well-being, our bodies come with helpful built-in protective functional barriers. The blood-brain barrier and the placenta are two examples. In basic terms, both restrict the free flow of substances from the systemic circulation and help prevent harmful substances from reaching the brain and the fetus, respectively. The placenta is unique in that it develops along with the fetus and, at delivery, is expelled after having done its work. But what happens when a disease or treatment alters the ability of the placenta to operate as a control gate for the fetus?

In keeping with this column’s title, let’s start with bugs. Based on the 2021 World Malaria Report, malaria continues to strike hardest against pregnant women and children in Africa.¹ In 2020 in 33 moderate- and high-transmission African countries, 34% of pregnancies (11.6 million of 33.8 million) were exposed to malaria infection. Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, including small for gestational age and preterm birth, which in turn increase the risk for neonatal and childhood mortality.

Malaria is caused by the parasite of the genus Plasmodium and is transmitted by infective female Anopheles mosquitoes. The predominant parasite in sub-Saharan Africa is Plasmodium falciparum. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Once a subject is bitten, the P. falciparum parasite is injected into the human blood stream where it is taken up initially by the liver and subsequently by the erythrocytes of the host which adhere to placental receptors, triggering placental inflammation and subsequent damage. This leads to impaired placental development and function, placental insufficiency, and the adverse birth outcomes identified above.² In targeting the placenta, this parasite can cause structural and functional placental alterations through infection and inflammation. A recent review by McColl et al. has shown that placental inflammation with or without infection affects the normal function of placental amino acid transporters, leading to similar adverse pregnancy outcomes.³

Moving on to drugs and drug safety in pregnancy, concern generally focuses on exposure during pregnancy that might directly affect the fetus at critical time windows during growth and development. There is a need to understand not only the size of the drug molecules and the degree to which they cross the placenta, but also how those medications may affect the development and function of the placenta itself. New research methods such as the “placenta-on-a-chip” that models the transport of nutrients and drugs allow direct evaluation of placental function.⁴ Assessing placental function using such tools during drug development will contribute to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of new medications for use in pregnancy, providing important information at the preclinical phases.⁵

The placenta is a dynamic organ with metabolic, endocrine, immunologic, and transport functions. Most importantly, it protects a healthy pregnancy. It also provides the advantage of immunologic protection to the fetus when maternal antibodies cross the placenta and provide initial protection until the newborn’s own immune system matures. Using our knowledge of placental alteration models and new research methods such as “placenta-on-a-chip” can help expand our understanding of the role of the placenta in medication safety in pregnancy.

Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, at Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Tassinari is a consultant and was formerly employed by Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Tassinari is a past president of BDRP (formerly the Teratology Society) and currently serves as a member of the External Science Advisory Committee for The Medicines for Malaria Venture and is a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the COVID-19 Vaccines International Pregnancy Exposure Registry.

References

1. World malaria report 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

2. Chua CLL et al. Front Immunol. 2021;12:621382.

3. McColl ER et al. Drug Metab Dispos. May 2022.

4. Blundeli C et al. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018. January;7(2).

5. David AL et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.

They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.

Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Genetic approach reveals causal relationship

The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.

Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.

The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0  and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.

During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
 

Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D

The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.

With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).

Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.

Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.

And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.

Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.

Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.

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

Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.

They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.

Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Genetic approach reveals causal relationship

The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.

Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.

The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0  and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.

During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
 

Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D

The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.

With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).

Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.

Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.

And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.

Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.

Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.

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

Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.

They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.

Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Genetic approach reveals causal relationship

The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.

Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.

The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0  and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.

During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
 

Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D

The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.

With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).

Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.

Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.

And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.

Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.

Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.

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

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

The relationship between estrogen levels and heart health makes it particularly important for clinicians to be aware of those patients who might be at risk for cardiovascular disease despite not having other traditional risk factors, according to a presentation Oct. 12 at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting in Atlanta.

”Endogenous estrogens are protective for cardiovascular disease in premenopausal women,” Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., told attendees. Yet, “a substantial population of young women are dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease,” with rates of cardiovascular death increasing in women aged 35-44 even as rates have decreased in postmenopausal women and in men. One potential reason may be premature estrogen loss.

Dr. Shufelt reminded attendees of four major causes of premature estrogen loss: Natural premature menopause, surgical menopause, chemotherapy-induced menopause, and premature ovarian insufficiency. But she would go on to discuss a less widely recognized condition, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, that also may be contributing to increased cardiovascular risk.

First, Dr. Shufelt reviewed the evidence supporting the relationship between estrogen and cardiovascular health, starting with the Framingham study’s findings that cardiovascular disease is approximately two to four times more common in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women, depending on the age range.

“Menopause at an early age, particularly under the age of 40, matters,” Dr. Shufelt said. “So we should be discussing this with our patients.”

Surgical menopause makes a difference to cardiovascular health as well, she said. In women under age 35, for example, the risk of a nonfatal heart attack in those with a bilateral oophorectomy was 7.7 times greater than in women who retained both ovaries and their uterus, and 1.5 times greater in women who had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy.

In a 2019 study, surgical premature menopause was associated with an 87% increased risk of heart disease even after researchers accounted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and some forms of hormone therapy. The increased risk from natural premature menopause, on the other hand, was lower – a 36% increased risk of heart disease – compared with those producing endogenous hormones. Although randomized controlled trials are unavailable and unlikely to be done, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Danish Nurses Cohort Study, both observational studies, found that heart disease risk was diminished in those taking hormone therapy after surgical premature menopause.

Recommendations for premature or early menopause, from a wide range of different medical societies including NAMS, are that women without contraindications be given estrogen-based hormone therapy until the average age of natural menopause. Though not included in the same guidance, research has also shown that estrogen after oophorectomy does not increase the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation, Dr. Shufelt said. Hormone therapy for premature or early menopause should adequately replace the levels women have lost and that means younger menopausal women often need higher doses than what older women receive, such as 2 mg/day of oral estradiol rather than the standard doses of 0.5 or 1 mg/day.
 

Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and cardiovascular risk

Dr. Shufelt then discussed functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (hypogonadotropic hypogonadism), a common type of secondary amenorrhea that affects at least 1.4 million U.S. women. Diagnosis includes lack of a period for at least 3 months in someone who previously menstruated plus lab values below 50 pg/mL for estradiol, below 10 mIU/L for follicle stimulating hormone, and below 10 mIU/L for luteinizing hormone. Causes of this reversible form of infertility can include stress, overexercising, undereating, or some combination of these, plus an underlying genetic predisposition.

“After ruling out polycystic ovary syndrome, prolactinoma, and thyroid dysfunction, clinicians need to consider the diagnosis of hypothalamic amenorrhea,” Dr. Shufelt said. This condition goes beyond low estrogen levels: Women have elevated cortisol, low thyroid levels, low leptin levels, and increased ghrelin.

”This is not going away,” Dr. Shufelt said, sharing data on stress levels among U.S. adults, particularly Gen Z and millennial adults, noting that the ongoing “national mental health crisis” may be contributing to functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

A 2020 substudy from the Nurses’ Health Study II found an increased risk of premature death in those who didn’t have a period or always had irregular periods starting as early as 14-17 years old. The increased risk of premature death rose with age in those with irregular or absent cycles – a 37% higher risk in 18- to 22-year-olds and a 39% increased risk in 29- to 46-year-olds.

But clinicians aren’t adequately identifying the “phenotype of the hypothalamic women,” Dr. Shufelt said, despite research showing overlap between hypothalamic amenorrhea and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Hypothalamic amenorrhea is so understudied that the last original research on the topic was in 2008, Dr. Shufelt said in an interview. ”No research except mine has been done to evaluate heart health in these young women,” she said.

Dr. Shufelt described a study she led involving 30 women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea, 29 women with normal menstrual cycles, and 30 women who were recently menopausal and not on hormone therapy. The women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had average stress levels but their depression scores were higher than those of the other two groups.

The results showed that women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower estradiol and leptin levels and higher testosterone levels compared with the control group, and they had higher cortisol levels than those of both groups. Despite having similar body mass indexes as the control and menopausal groups, women with hypothalamic amenorrhea had lower blood pressure than that of the other two groups, yet they had higher cholesterol levels than those of the control group. EndoPAT^© (Itamar Medical) testing showed that they had poor vascular function.

“In fact, one-third of the women [with hypothalamic amenorrhea] entered the trial with a diagnosis of what would be considered endothelial dysfunction,” Dr. Shufelt said. “Our results demonstrated significantly higher circulating levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines in the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea compared to eumenorrheic controls.”

Dr. Shufelt’s team then tested whether giving estradiol to the women with hypothalamic amenorrhea for 12 weeks would improve their vascular health, but they saw no significant differences between the women who received estrogen and those who received placebo.

“Endothelial function is partly mediated by estrogen, and it was expected that giving back estrogen would ‘fix’ the endothelium, but that is not what happened,” Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in interview. “The mechanisms that maintain vascular function in women are not limited to hormones,” said Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s study but attended her lecture. “We need to think beyond the simple model of estrogen-good, no-estrogen-bad.”

Dr. Santoro noted how easy it is to overlook the women who may have cardiovascular risk because of hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“Because many women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea are super athletic and do not have the typical features of people with cardiometabolic disease – such as glucose intolerance, obesity, abnormal cholesterol or triglycerides, or high blood pressure – clinicians tend to think of them as healthy and to think that simply giving back hormones will fix the problems with bone density and vascular function, but that is not enough,” Dr. Santoro said. “The cognitive-behavioral therapy model for treatment of women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea addresses the stress-related factors that drive the disorder, and this needs to be considered the standard of care for treatment.”

Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, professor of medicine and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved in Dr. Shufelt’s presentation, also emphasized the importance of recognizing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea.

“This is an underrecognized entity to begin with, and the fact that these women appear to be at increased risk for vascular dysfunction and potentially increased risk for cardiovascular disease down the road makes it even more important for clinicians to identify them and provide interventions early on,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “These women need to be identified and the etiology of the amenorrhea addressed, whether it relates to overexercising, being underweight, or experiencing significant stressors that have led to the loss of menstrual cycles.”

Dr. Shufelt’s research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She had no disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory board for Astellas, Menogenix, Amazon Ember, and Que Oncology, and she consults for Ansh Labs. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.

Black mothers giving birth in hospitals are 53% more likely to die during childbirth than are Hispanic and White women, according to researchers who attributed the gap at least in part to bias among physicians and the health care system.

The United States is in the midst of a maternal healthcare crisis, said Robert White, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the study. The maternal death rate among U.S. women in 2018, for instance, was 17.4 per 100,000 births, more than twice the figure in Canada (8.6 per 100,000 live births) and the United Kingdom (6.5 per 100,000 live births in 2016), according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“At baseline, our maternal mortality rates are higher than other comparable Western nations, and at the same time, there’s a huge spread in the maternal mortality ratio between White mothers and Black mothers, where Black mothers are experiencing maternal mortality about two or three times higher,” Dr. White told this news organization.

Previous research has shown racial disparities in rates of maternal mortality. But Dr. White said that his study controlled for income level, type of insurance, and other social factors that may have affected the health of the women.

“The research that I conducted is one of the largest of its kind, and the logistic regression model that we were able to run was able to control for a lot of these factors,” he said.

For the new study, presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. White and his team analyzed data from 9.5 million deliveries across six states (California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, and Washington) between 2007 and 2018. They found that 49,472 mothers (0.5%) either died in the hospital or experienced an injury during childbirth, which included damages to the brain, heart, eyes, or kidneys.

Overall, 0.8% of Black women experienced either a death or an injury, compared with 0.5% of Hispanic women and 0.4% of White women. The researchers concluded that Black women had a 53% increased chance of dying during childbirth in a hospital, even after adjusting for factors such as insurance type, hospital type, and income.

If income, insurance type, and other social factors aren’t driving this disparity in maternal mortality, what is? Dr. White said that the study didn’t uncover the underlying cause, but in his opinion, racial bias and systemic racism are likely contributing to the gap in deaths.

“I think the takeaway for physicians should be that we should humbly accept that prejudice, bias, and racism does exist among physicians,” Dr. White said.

Adi Davidov, MD, associate chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said that both anesthesiologists and ob.gyns. have been aware of these disparate health outcomes for years but have historically attributed the higher odds of injuries and death amongst Black women to health issues rather than racism.

“It is now quite evident that there is more to the story and that there is a degree of unconscious bias as well as systemic racism in health care that contributes to the disparities in outcomes,” said Dr. Davidov, who was not involved in the study.

Meanwhile, new data show that maternal mortality worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for Black women. The rate of maternal death for Black women was 44 per 100,000 live births in 2019, 55.3 in 2020, and 68.9 in 2021, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In contrast, White women had death rates of 17.9, 19.1, and 26.1, respectively.

“Bias or discrimination within the health care system can create communication challenges between providers and their patients, which may increase the risk of adverse outcomes,” the report stated.
 

What can be done

The most important thing physicians can do is to understand and acknowledge unconscious bias, Dr. Davidov told this news organization. “It is important to learn how to identify biases and make sure that it does not affect your medical decision making,” he said.

Dr. White suggested that physicians receive training in implicit bias and cultural competency and stay up to date on research regarding race and medicine as well as learning and using inclusive language.

He also urged physicians closely follow protocols for standard care for their discipline.

“Standardized care protocols have been shown to reduce variance between care of patients of different social structures and shown to decrease this disparity gap,” he said.

The study was supported by a Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Mentored Research Training Grant. Dr. White and Dr. Davidov report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black mothers giving birth in hospitals are 53% more likely to die during childbirth than are Hispanic and White women, according to researchers who attributed the gap at least in part to bias among physicians and the health care system.

The United States is in the midst of a maternal healthcare crisis, said Robert White, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the study. The maternal death rate among U.S. women in 2018, for instance, was 17.4 per 100,000 births, more than twice the figure in Canada (8.6 per 100,000 live births) and the United Kingdom (6.5 per 100,000 live births in 2016), according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“At baseline, our maternal mortality rates are higher than other comparable Western nations, and at the same time, there’s a huge spread in the maternal mortality ratio between White mothers and Black mothers, where Black mothers are experiencing maternal mortality about two or three times higher,” Dr. White told this news organization.

Previous research has shown racial disparities in rates of maternal mortality. But Dr. White said that his study controlled for income level, type of insurance, and other social factors that may have affected the health of the women.

“The research that I conducted is one of the largest of its kind, and the logistic regression model that we were able to run was able to control for a lot of these factors,” he said.

For the new study, presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. White and his team analyzed data from 9.5 million deliveries across six states (California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, and Washington) between 2007 and 2018. They found that 49,472 mothers (0.5%) either died in the hospital or experienced an injury during childbirth, which included damages to the brain, heart, eyes, or kidneys.

Overall, 0.8% of Black women experienced either a death or an injury, compared with 0.5% of Hispanic women and 0.4% of White women. The researchers concluded that Black women had a 53% increased chance of dying during childbirth in a hospital, even after adjusting for factors such as insurance type, hospital type, and income.

If income, insurance type, and other social factors aren’t driving this disparity in maternal mortality, what is? Dr. White said that the study didn’t uncover the underlying cause, but in his opinion, racial bias and systemic racism are likely contributing to the gap in deaths.

“I think the takeaway for physicians should be that we should humbly accept that prejudice, bias, and racism does exist among physicians,” Dr. White said.

Adi Davidov, MD, associate chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said that both anesthesiologists and ob.gyns. have been aware of these disparate health outcomes for years but have historically attributed the higher odds of injuries and death amongst Black women to health issues rather than racism.

“It is now quite evident that there is more to the story and that there is a degree of unconscious bias as well as systemic racism in health care that contributes to the disparities in outcomes,” said Dr. Davidov, who was not involved in the study.

Meanwhile, new data show that maternal mortality worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for Black women. The rate of maternal death for Black women was 44 per 100,000 live births in 2019, 55.3 in 2020, and 68.9 in 2021, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In contrast, White women had death rates of 17.9, 19.1, and 26.1, respectively.

“Bias or discrimination within the health care system can create communication challenges between providers and their patients, which may increase the risk of adverse outcomes,” the report stated.
 

What can be done

The most important thing physicians can do is to understand and acknowledge unconscious bias, Dr. Davidov told this news organization. “It is important to learn how to identify biases and make sure that it does not affect your medical decision making,” he said.

Dr. White suggested that physicians receive training in implicit bias and cultural competency and stay up to date on research regarding race and medicine as well as learning and using inclusive language.

He also urged physicians closely follow protocols for standard care for their discipline.

“Standardized care protocols have been shown to reduce variance between care of patients of different social structures and shown to decrease this disparity gap,” he said.

The study was supported by a Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Mentored Research Training Grant. Dr. White and Dr. Davidov report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black mothers giving birth in hospitals are 53% more likely to die during childbirth than are Hispanic and White women, according to researchers who attributed the gap at least in part to bias among physicians and the health care system.

The United States is in the midst of a maternal healthcare crisis, said Robert White, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the study. The maternal death rate among U.S. women in 2018, for instance, was 17.4 per 100,000 births, more than twice the figure in Canada (8.6 per 100,000 live births) and the United Kingdom (6.5 per 100,000 live births in 2016), according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“At baseline, our maternal mortality rates are higher than other comparable Western nations, and at the same time, there’s a huge spread in the maternal mortality ratio between White mothers and Black mothers, where Black mothers are experiencing maternal mortality about two or three times higher,” Dr. White told this news organization.

Previous research has shown racial disparities in rates of maternal mortality. But Dr. White said that his study controlled for income level, type of insurance, and other social factors that may have affected the health of the women.

“The research that I conducted is one of the largest of its kind, and the logistic regression model that we were able to run was able to control for a lot of these factors,” he said.

For the new study, presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. White and his team analyzed data from 9.5 million deliveries across six states (California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, and Washington) between 2007 and 2018. They found that 49,472 mothers (0.5%) either died in the hospital or experienced an injury during childbirth, which included damages to the brain, heart, eyes, or kidneys.

Overall, 0.8% of Black women experienced either a death or an injury, compared with 0.5% of Hispanic women and 0.4% of White women. The researchers concluded that Black women had a 53% increased chance of dying during childbirth in a hospital, even after adjusting for factors such as insurance type, hospital type, and income.

If income, insurance type, and other social factors aren’t driving this disparity in maternal mortality, what is? Dr. White said that the study didn’t uncover the underlying cause, but in his opinion, racial bias and systemic racism are likely contributing to the gap in deaths.

“I think the takeaway for physicians should be that we should humbly accept that prejudice, bias, and racism does exist among physicians,” Dr. White said.

Adi Davidov, MD, associate chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said that both anesthesiologists and ob.gyns. have been aware of these disparate health outcomes for years but have historically attributed the higher odds of injuries and death amongst Black women to health issues rather than racism.

“It is now quite evident that there is more to the story and that there is a degree of unconscious bias as well as systemic racism in health care that contributes to the disparities in outcomes,” said Dr. Davidov, who was not involved in the study.

Meanwhile, new data show that maternal mortality worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for Black women. The rate of maternal death for Black women was 44 per 100,000 live births in 2019, 55.3 in 2020, and 68.9 in 2021, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In contrast, White women had death rates of 17.9, 19.1, and 26.1, respectively.

“Bias or discrimination within the health care system can create communication challenges between providers and their patients, which may increase the risk of adverse outcomes,” the report stated.
 

What can be done

The most important thing physicians can do is to understand and acknowledge unconscious bias, Dr. Davidov told this news organization. “It is important to learn how to identify biases and make sure that it does not affect your medical decision making,” he said.

Dr. White suggested that physicians receive training in implicit bias and cultural competency and stay up to date on research regarding race and medicine as well as learning and using inclusive language.

He also urged physicians closely follow protocols for standard care for their discipline.

“Standardized care protocols have been shown to reduce variance between care of patients of different social structures and shown to decrease this disparity gap,” he said.

The study was supported by a Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Mentored Research Training Grant. Dr. White and Dr. Davidov report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The developmentally disabled girl was just 10 years old when Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee, helped care for her. Providing that care was not emotionally easy. “Her brother’s friend sexually assaulted her and impregnated her,” Dr. Thew said.

The girl was able to obtain an abortion, a decision her parents supported. The alternative could have been deadly. “She was a tiny little person and would not have been able to carry a fetus,” Dr. Thew, a nurse practitioner, said.

Dr. Thew said she’s thankful that tragic case occurred before 2022. After the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Wisconsin reverted to an 1849 law banning abortion. Although the law is currently being challenged, Dr. Thew wonders how the situation would have played out now. (Weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, a similar case occurred in Ohio. In that case, a 10-year-old girl had to travel out of the state to obtain an abortion after having been raped.)

Talking to adolescents and young adults about reproductive health, whether regarding an unexpected pregnancy, the need for contraception, or to provide information about sexual activity, can be a challenge even for experienced health care providers.

The talks, decisions, and care are particularly complex when patients have developmental and intellectual disabilities. Among the many factors, Dr. Thew said, are dealing with menstruation, finding the right contraceptives, and counseling parents who might not want to acknowledge their children’s emerging sexuality.
 

Statistics: How many?

Because the definitions of disabilities vary and they represent a spectrum, estimates for how many youth have intellectual or developmental disabilities range widely.

In 2019, the National Survey of Children’s Health found that 1 in 4 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years have special health care needs because of disability. The American Community Survey estimates more than 1.3 million people aged 16-20 have a disability.

Intellectual disabilities can occur when a person’s IQ is below 70, significantly impeding the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, and communicating. Developmental disabilities are impairments in physical, learning, language, and behavior, according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among the conditions are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, fragile X syndrome, learning and language problems, spina bifida, and other conditions.
 

Addressing common issues, concerns

April Kayser is a health educator for the Multnomah County Health Department, Portland, Ore. In 2016, Ms. Kayser and other experts conducted interviews with 11 youth with developmental and intellectual disabilities and 34 support people, either parents or professionals who provide services. The survey was part of the SHEIDD Project – short for Sexual Health Equity for Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities – at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).

From their findings, the researchers compiled guidelines. They provided scenarios that health care providers need to be aware of and that they need to be ready to address:

• A boy, 14, who is unclear about what to do when he feels sexually excited and wants to masturbate but isn’t at home. He has been told that masturbation is appropriate in private.
• A 20-year-old woman who lives in a group home is pregnant. She confesses to her parents during a visit that another resident is her boyfriend and that he is the father of the child she is expecting.
• A 17-year-old boy wants to ask out another student, who is 15.

Some developmentally and intellectually disabled youth can’t turn to their parents for help. One person in the survey said his father told him, “You don’t need to worry about any of that stuff. You’re too young.” Another said the job of a health care provider was to offer reproductive and sex education “to make sure you don’t screw up in some bad way.”

One finding stood out: Health care providers were at the top of the list of those whom young people trusted for information about reproductive and sexual health, Ms. Kayser said. Yet in her experience, she said, health care professionals are hesitant to bring up the issues with all youth, “especially those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.”

Health care providers often talk both to the patient and to the parents. Those conversations can be critical when a child is developmentally or intellectually disabled.

Women with disabilities have been shown to have a higher risk for adverse outcomes of pregnancy, said Willi Horner-Johnson, PhD, associate professor at OHSU–Portland State University School of Public Health.

In a recent study, she and her colleagues analyzed data from the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth that included self-reported disability status. They found that the number of women with disabilities who give birth is far higher than was previously thought.

The researchers found that 19.5% of respondents who gave birth reported at least one sensory, cognitive, or mobility-related disability, a rate that is much greater than the less than 1%-6.6% estimates that are based on hospital discharge data.

Her group reported other troubling findings: Women with disabilities are twice as likely to have smoked during their pregnancy (19% vs. 8.9%) and are more likely to have preterm and low-birthweight babies.
 

Clinicians play an important role

Dr. Horner-Johnson agreed with the finding from the Multnomah County survey that health care providers play an important role in providing those with intellectual and developmental disabilities reproductive health care that meets their needs. “Clinicians need to be asking people with disabilities about their reproductive plans,” she said.

In the Multnomah County report, the researchers advised health care providers to recognize that people with disabilities are social and sexual beings; to learn about their goals, including those regarding sex and reproductive health; and to help youth build skills for healthy relationships and sexual activity.

Dr. Horner-Johnson pointed out that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists “recommends that clinicians discuss reproductive plans at every visit, for example, by asking one key question – ‘Would you like to become pregnant in the next year?’ – of every woman of reproductive age.”

Some women will not be able to answer that question, and health care providers at times must rely on a caregiver for input. But many women, even those with disabilities, could answer if given a chance. She estimated that only about 5% of disabled people are unable to communicate. “Clinicians defer to the caregiver more than they need to,” she said.

Clinicians are becoming better at providing care to those with disabilities, Dr. Horner-Johnson said, yet they have a way to go. Clinician biases may prevent some from asking all women, including those with disabilities, about their reproductive plans. “Women with disabilities have described clinicians treating them as nonsexual, assuming or implying that they would not or should not get pregnant,” she writes in her report.

Such biases, she said, could be reduced by increased education of providers. A 2018 study in Health Equity found that only 19.3% of ob.gyns. said they felt equipped to manage the pregnancy of a woman with disabilities.

Managing sexuality and sexual health for youth with disabilities can be highly complex, according to Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Challenges include the following:

• Parents often can’t deal with the reality that their teen or young adult is sexually active or may become so. Parents she helps often prefer to use the term “hormones,” not contraceptives, when talking about pregnancy prevention.
• Menstruation is a frequent concern, especially for youth with severe disabilities. Some react strongly to seeing a sanitary pad with blood, for example, by throwing it. Parents worry that caregivers will balk at changing pads regularly. As a result, some parents want complete menstrual suppression, Dr. Thew said. The American Academy of Pediatrics outlines how to approach menstrual suppression through methods such as the use of estrogen-progestin, progesterone, a ring, or a patch. In late August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released its clinical consensus on medical management of menstrual suppression.
• Some parents want to know how to obtain a complete hysterectomy for the patient – an option Dr. Thew and the AAP discourage. “We will tell them that’s not the best and safest approach, as you want to have the estrogen for bone health,” she said.
• After a discussion of all the options, an intrauterine device proves best for many. “That gives 7-8 years of protection,” she said, which is the approved effective duration for such devices. “They are less apt to have heavy monthly menstrual bleeding.”
• Parents of boys with disabilities, especially those with Down syndrome, often ask for sex education and guidance when sexual desires develop.
• Many parents want effective birth control for their children because of fear that their teen or young adult will be assaulted, a fear that isn’t groundless. Such cases are common, and caregivers frequently are the perpetrators.

Ms. Kayser, Dr. Horner-Johnson, and Dr. Thew have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The developmentally disabled girl was just 10 years old when Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee, helped care for her. Providing that care was not emotionally easy. “Her brother’s friend sexually assaulted her and impregnated her,” Dr. Thew said.

The girl was able to obtain an abortion, a decision her parents supported. The alternative could have been deadly. “She was a tiny little person and would not have been able to carry a fetus,” Dr. Thew, a nurse practitioner, said.

Dr. Thew said she’s thankful that tragic case occurred before 2022. After the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Wisconsin reverted to an 1849 law banning abortion. Although the law is currently being challenged, Dr. Thew wonders how the situation would have played out now. (Weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, a similar case occurred in Ohio. In that case, a 10-year-old girl had to travel out of the state to obtain an abortion after having been raped.)

Talking to adolescents and young adults about reproductive health, whether regarding an unexpected pregnancy, the need for contraception, or to provide information about sexual activity, can be a challenge even for experienced health care providers.

The talks, decisions, and care are particularly complex when patients have developmental and intellectual disabilities. Among the many factors, Dr. Thew said, are dealing with menstruation, finding the right contraceptives, and counseling parents who might not want to acknowledge their children’s emerging sexuality.
 

Statistics: How many?

Because the definitions of disabilities vary and they represent a spectrum, estimates for how many youth have intellectual or developmental disabilities range widely.

In 2019, the National Survey of Children’s Health found that 1 in 4 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years have special health care needs because of disability. The American Community Survey estimates more than 1.3 million people aged 16-20 have a disability.

Intellectual disabilities can occur when a person’s IQ is below 70, significantly impeding the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, and communicating. Developmental disabilities are impairments in physical, learning, language, and behavior, according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among the conditions are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, fragile X syndrome, learning and language problems, spina bifida, and other conditions.
 

Addressing common issues, concerns

April Kayser is a health educator for the Multnomah County Health Department, Portland, Ore. In 2016, Ms. Kayser and other experts conducted interviews with 11 youth with developmental and intellectual disabilities and 34 support people, either parents or professionals who provide services. The survey was part of the SHEIDD Project – short for Sexual Health Equity for Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities – at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).

From their findings, the researchers compiled guidelines. They provided scenarios that health care providers need to be aware of and that they need to be ready to address:

• A boy, 14, who is unclear about what to do when he feels sexually excited and wants to masturbate but isn’t at home. He has been told that masturbation is appropriate in private.
• A 20-year-old woman who lives in a group home is pregnant. She confesses to her parents during a visit that another resident is her boyfriend and that he is the father of the child she is expecting.
• A 17-year-old boy wants to ask out another student, who is 15.

Some developmentally and intellectually disabled youth can’t turn to their parents for help. One person in the survey said his father told him, “You don’t need to worry about any of that stuff. You’re too young.” Another said the job of a health care provider was to offer reproductive and sex education “to make sure you don’t screw up in some bad way.”

One finding stood out: Health care providers were at the top of the list of those whom young people trusted for information about reproductive and sexual health, Ms. Kayser said. Yet in her experience, she said, health care professionals are hesitant to bring up the issues with all youth, “especially those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.”

Health care providers often talk both to the patient and to the parents. Those conversations can be critical when a child is developmentally or intellectually disabled.

Women with disabilities have been shown to have a higher risk for adverse outcomes of pregnancy, said Willi Horner-Johnson, PhD, associate professor at OHSU–Portland State University School of Public Health.

In a recent study, she and her colleagues analyzed data from the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth that included self-reported disability status. They found that the number of women with disabilities who give birth is far higher than was previously thought.

The researchers found that 19.5% of respondents who gave birth reported at least one sensory, cognitive, or mobility-related disability, a rate that is much greater than the less than 1%-6.6% estimates that are based on hospital discharge data.

Her group reported other troubling findings: Women with disabilities are twice as likely to have smoked during their pregnancy (19% vs. 8.9%) and are more likely to have preterm and low-birthweight babies.
 

Clinicians play an important role

Dr. Horner-Johnson agreed with the finding from the Multnomah County survey that health care providers play an important role in providing those with intellectual and developmental disabilities reproductive health care that meets their needs. “Clinicians need to be asking people with disabilities about their reproductive plans,” she said.

In the Multnomah County report, the researchers advised health care providers to recognize that people with disabilities are social and sexual beings; to learn about their goals, including those regarding sex and reproductive health; and to help youth build skills for healthy relationships and sexual activity.

Dr. Horner-Johnson pointed out that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists “recommends that clinicians discuss reproductive plans at every visit, for example, by asking one key question – ‘Would you like to become pregnant in the next year?’ – of every woman of reproductive age.”

Some women will not be able to answer that question, and health care providers at times must rely on a caregiver for input. But many women, even those with disabilities, could answer if given a chance. She estimated that only about 5% of disabled people are unable to communicate. “Clinicians defer to the caregiver more than they need to,” she said.

Clinicians are becoming better at providing care to those with disabilities, Dr. Horner-Johnson said, yet they have a way to go. Clinician biases may prevent some from asking all women, including those with disabilities, about their reproductive plans. “Women with disabilities have described clinicians treating them as nonsexual, assuming or implying that they would not or should not get pregnant,” she writes in her report.

Such biases, she said, could be reduced by increased education of providers. A 2018 study in Health Equity found that only 19.3% of ob.gyns. said they felt equipped to manage the pregnancy of a woman with disabilities.

Managing sexuality and sexual health for youth with disabilities can be highly complex, according to Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Challenges include the following:

• Parents often can’t deal with the reality that their teen or young adult is sexually active or may become so. Parents she helps often prefer to use the term “hormones,” not contraceptives, when talking about pregnancy prevention.
• Menstruation is a frequent concern, especially for youth with severe disabilities. Some react strongly to seeing a sanitary pad with blood, for example, by throwing it. Parents worry that caregivers will balk at changing pads regularly. As a result, some parents want complete menstrual suppression, Dr. Thew said. The American Academy of Pediatrics outlines how to approach menstrual suppression through methods such as the use of estrogen-progestin, progesterone, a ring, or a patch. In late August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released its clinical consensus on medical management of menstrual suppression.
• Some parents want to know how to obtain a complete hysterectomy for the patient – an option Dr. Thew and the AAP discourage. “We will tell them that’s not the best and safest approach, as you want to have the estrogen for bone health,” she said.
• After a discussion of all the options, an intrauterine device proves best for many. “That gives 7-8 years of protection,” she said, which is the approved effective duration for such devices. “They are less apt to have heavy monthly menstrual bleeding.”
• Parents of boys with disabilities, especially those with Down syndrome, often ask for sex education and guidance when sexual desires develop.
• Many parents want effective birth control for their children because of fear that their teen or young adult will be assaulted, a fear that isn’t groundless. Such cases are common, and caregivers frequently are the perpetrators.

Ms. Kayser, Dr. Horner-Johnson, and Dr. Thew have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The developmentally disabled girl was just 10 years old when Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee, helped care for her. Providing that care was not emotionally easy. “Her brother’s friend sexually assaulted her and impregnated her,” Dr. Thew said.

The girl was able to obtain an abortion, a decision her parents supported. The alternative could have been deadly. “She was a tiny little person and would not have been able to carry a fetus,” Dr. Thew, a nurse practitioner, said.

Dr. Thew said she’s thankful that tragic case occurred before 2022. After the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Wisconsin reverted to an 1849 law banning abortion. Although the law is currently being challenged, Dr. Thew wonders how the situation would have played out now. (Weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, a similar case occurred in Ohio. In that case, a 10-year-old girl had to travel out of the state to obtain an abortion after having been raped.)

Talking to adolescents and young adults about reproductive health, whether regarding an unexpected pregnancy, the need for contraception, or to provide information about sexual activity, can be a challenge even for experienced health care providers.

The talks, decisions, and care are particularly complex when patients have developmental and intellectual disabilities. Among the many factors, Dr. Thew said, are dealing with menstruation, finding the right contraceptives, and counseling parents who might not want to acknowledge their children’s emerging sexuality.
 

Statistics: How many?

Because the definitions of disabilities vary and they represent a spectrum, estimates for how many youth have intellectual or developmental disabilities range widely.

In 2019, the National Survey of Children’s Health found that 1 in 4 children and adolescents aged 12-17 years have special health care needs because of disability. The American Community Survey estimates more than 1.3 million people aged 16-20 have a disability.

Intellectual disabilities can occur when a person’s IQ is below 70, significantly impeding the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, and communicating. Developmental disabilities are impairments in physical, learning, language, and behavior, according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among the conditions are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, fragile X syndrome, learning and language problems, spina bifida, and other conditions.
 

Addressing common issues, concerns

April Kayser is a health educator for the Multnomah County Health Department, Portland, Ore. In 2016, Ms. Kayser and other experts conducted interviews with 11 youth with developmental and intellectual disabilities and 34 support people, either parents or professionals who provide services. The survey was part of the SHEIDD Project – short for Sexual Health Equity for Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities – at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).

From their findings, the researchers compiled guidelines. They provided scenarios that health care providers need to be aware of and that they need to be ready to address:

• A boy, 14, who is unclear about what to do when he feels sexually excited and wants to masturbate but isn’t at home. He has been told that masturbation is appropriate in private.
• A 20-year-old woman who lives in a group home is pregnant. She confesses to her parents during a visit that another resident is her boyfriend and that he is the father of the child she is expecting.
• A 17-year-old boy wants to ask out another student, who is 15.

Some developmentally and intellectually disabled youth can’t turn to their parents for help. One person in the survey said his father told him, “You don’t need to worry about any of that stuff. You’re too young.” Another said the job of a health care provider was to offer reproductive and sex education “to make sure you don’t screw up in some bad way.”

One finding stood out: Health care providers were at the top of the list of those whom young people trusted for information about reproductive and sexual health, Ms. Kayser said. Yet in her experience, she said, health care professionals are hesitant to bring up the issues with all youth, “especially those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.”

Health care providers often talk both to the patient and to the parents. Those conversations can be critical when a child is developmentally or intellectually disabled.

Women with disabilities have been shown to have a higher risk for adverse outcomes of pregnancy, said Willi Horner-Johnson, PhD, associate professor at OHSU–Portland State University School of Public Health.

In a recent study, she and her colleagues analyzed data from the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth that included self-reported disability status. They found that the number of women with disabilities who give birth is far higher than was previously thought.

The researchers found that 19.5% of respondents who gave birth reported at least one sensory, cognitive, or mobility-related disability, a rate that is much greater than the less than 1%-6.6% estimates that are based on hospital discharge data.

Her group reported other troubling findings: Women with disabilities are twice as likely to have smoked during their pregnancy (19% vs. 8.9%) and are more likely to have preterm and low-birthweight babies.
 

Clinicians play an important role

Dr. Horner-Johnson agreed with the finding from the Multnomah County survey that health care providers play an important role in providing those with intellectual and developmental disabilities reproductive health care that meets their needs. “Clinicians need to be asking people with disabilities about their reproductive plans,” she said.

In the Multnomah County report, the researchers advised health care providers to recognize that people with disabilities are social and sexual beings; to learn about their goals, including those regarding sex and reproductive health; and to help youth build skills for healthy relationships and sexual activity.

Dr. Horner-Johnson pointed out that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists “recommends that clinicians discuss reproductive plans at every visit, for example, by asking one key question – ‘Would you like to become pregnant in the next year?’ – of every woman of reproductive age.”

Some women will not be able to answer that question, and health care providers at times must rely on a caregiver for input. But many women, even those with disabilities, could answer if given a chance. She estimated that only about 5% of disabled people are unable to communicate. “Clinicians defer to the caregiver more than they need to,” she said.

Clinicians are becoming better at providing care to those with disabilities, Dr. Horner-Johnson said, yet they have a way to go. Clinician biases may prevent some from asking all women, including those with disabilities, about their reproductive plans. “Women with disabilities have described clinicians treating them as nonsexual, assuming or implying that they would not or should not get pregnant,” she writes in her report.

Such biases, she said, could be reduced by increased education of providers. A 2018 study in Health Equity found that only 19.3% of ob.gyns. said they felt equipped to manage the pregnancy of a woman with disabilities.

Managing sexuality and sexual health for youth with disabilities can be highly complex, according to Margaret Thew, DNP, medical director of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Challenges include the following:

• Parents often can’t deal with the reality that their teen or young adult is sexually active or may become so. Parents she helps often prefer to use the term “hormones,” not contraceptives, when talking about pregnancy prevention.
• Menstruation is a frequent concern, especially for youth with severe disabilities. Some react strongly to seeing a sanitary pad with blood, for example, by throwing it. Parents worry that caregivers will balk at changing pads regularly. As a result, some parents want complete menstrual suppression, Dr. Thew said. The American Academy of Pediatrics outlines how to approach menstrual suppression through methods such as the use of estrogen-progestin, progesterone, a ring, or a patch. In late August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released its clinical consensus on medical management of menstrual suppression.
• Some parents want to know how to obtain a complete hysterectomy for the patient – an option Dr. Thew and the AAP discourage. “We will tell them that’s not the best and safest approach, as you want to have the estrogen for bone health,” she said.
• After a discussion of all the options, an intrauterine device proves best for many. “That gives 7-8 years of protection,” she said, which is the approved effective duration for such devices. “They are less apt to have heavy monthly menstrual bleeding.”
• Parents of boys with disabilities, especially those with Down syndrome, often ask for sex education and guidance when sexual desires develop.
• Many parents want effective birth control for their children because of fear that their teen or young adult will be assaulted, a fear that isn’t groundless. Such cases are common, and caregivers frequently are the perpetrators.

Ms. Kayser, Dr. Horner-Johnson, and Dr. Thew have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

A small new study suggests – but doesn’t prove – that exposure to Wi-Fi signals from cell phones in pants pockets could disrupt male fertility. Researchers found that sperm placed next to an in-use iPhone on the Wi-Fi setting over 6 hours had less motility (50% vs. 38%, P = .024) and viability (60% vs. 47%, P = .003) than those set to 4G and 5G.

The findings, presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting, don’t confirm that cell phones are harmful, lead author Kevin Y. Chu, MD, a Los Angeles urologist, said in an interview. “We cannot draw conclusions from this study, as the study population was too small. What we did observe was that Wi-Fi, which was previously less studied, may have had an impact on sperm. We did not see an effect on sperm quality by the 4G or 5G wireless spectrum.”

According to Dr. Chu, dozens of studies have examined the possible effect of cell phone exposure on sperm quality. “In human survey studies, there was no association of use and decline of sperm quality,” he said. “In human sperm in vitro studies, there was a decline of sperm motility and viability. And in animal studies, there was decline of sperm motility and viability.”

The new study is a pilot “to see if it is feasible to do a large-scale project” to analyze any possible effects from radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) transmitted by cell phones, he said.

According to the study, cell phones emit radiation when they “transmit data for social media, web browsing, and music/podcast streaming,” and the rise of Bluetooth earbuds “presumably prolonged the amount of time the cell phone resides in the trouser pockets of men. This places the cell phone and its respective RF-EMR near the testicles for prolonged [periods].”

Researchers obtained semen samples from 27 men aged 25-35 who were fertile with normal sperm. Then they placed the samples on top of a current-generation iPhone that was set to talk mode via WhatsApp and transmitted/received signals via Wi-Fi, 4G, or 5G.

The researchers found no difference in sperm quality between control samples and those exposed to 4G or 5G (n = 9), but Wi-Fi (n = 18) seemed to have an effect. “We also tested conditions with the phone in a cover, as well as separating it by about 6 inches [from the sperm samples]. We found that both did dampen the effect of what we were seeing in comparison to direct exposure,” Dr. Chu said. “It appears that heat that is emanated from the device contributes to this effect.”

Dr. Chu cautioned that the study examined only ejaculated sperm, and “does not replicate real life where there is scrotal wall protection [and] pants material.”

For now, he said, there’s not enough evidence to allow clinicians to provide guidance to patients about possible links between cell phone exposure and male fertility. None of the study authors have changed their own use of cell phones as a result of the findings, he added.

Moving forward, he said, “continued research on exposure effects is needed and the current association should be considered cautiously as hypothesis generating.”

In an interview, University of Utah urologist James Hotaling, MD, who’s familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the authors “have done a good job looking at this issue,” but with acknowledged limitations.

The study size is very small, he said, “making generalizability difficult.” And “while the results, particularly on the Wi-Fi part, are interesting, they must be validated.”

In the big picture, he said, “the decline in sperm counts over the last 40 years is multifactorial so it cannot all be attributed to this. Finally, to really make the claim that Wi-Fi impacted fertility, you would need to have a much larger study and, ideally, look at pregnancy rates in couples trying to conceive.”

Overall, he said, the scientific community is “still skeptical” about a link between cell phone use and a decline in male fertility.

The study authors and Dr. Hotaling have no relevant disclosures.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Birth parents are typically separated from their newborns following a cesarean section. However, a recent study published in the journal Nursing Open suggests immediate skin-to-skin contact may accelerate uterine contractions, reduce maternal blood loss, reduce newborn crying, improve patient satisfaction and comfort, and increase the rate of breastfeeding.

“[O]ur study contributes to scientific knowledge with key information to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality rates in mothers who have undergone scheduled cesarean sections,” José Miguel Pérez-Jiménez, MD, of the faculty of nursing, physiotherapy, and podiatry at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Sevilla, Spain, and colleagues wrote in their study. It promotes greater stability in the mothers by reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, making it better to not separate mother and child in the first hours after this surgery, he said.

Dr. Pérez-Jiménez and colleagues evaluated 83 women who underwent a scheduled cesarean section in an unblinded, randomized controlled trial. The women were randomized to receive skin-to-skin contact in the operating room that continued in the postpartum unit, or the normal protocol after cesarean section that consisted of having the mother transferred to the postanesthesia recovery room while the newborn was sent to a maternity room with a parent or companion. Researchers assessed variables such as plasma hemoglobin, uterine contractions, breastfeeding, and postoperative pain, as well as subjective measures such as maternal satisfaction, comfort, previous cesarean section experience, and newborn crying.

Women who received usual care following cesarean section were more likely to have uterine contractions at the umbilical level compared with the skin-to-skin contact group (70% vs. 3%; P ≤ .0001), while the skin-to-skin group was more likely to have uterine contractions at the infraumbilical level (92.5% vs. 22.5%; P ≤ .0001). There was a statistically significant decrease in predischarge hemoglobin in the control group compared with the skin-to-skin group (10.522 vs. 11.075 g/dL; P ≤ .017); the level of hemoglobin reduction favored the skin-to-skin group (1.01 vs. 2.265 g/dL; P ≤ .0001). Women in the skin-to-skin group were more likely to report mild pain on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) after being transferred to the recovery room (1.48 vs. 6.23 points; P ≤ .0001) and being transferred to a maternity room or room in the postpartum unit (0.60 vs. 5.23 points; P ≤ .0001). Breastfeeding at birth was significantly higher among patients with immediate skin-to-skin contact compared with the control group (92.5% vs. 32.5%; P ≤ .0001), and continued at 1 month after birth (92.5% vs. 12.5%; P ≤ .0001). Newborns of mothers in the skin-to-skin group were significantly less likely to cry compared with newborns in the control group (90% vs. 55%; P ≤ .001).

When asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale, women in the skin-to-skin contact group rated their experience significantly higher than did the control group (9.98 vs. 6.5; P ≤ .0001), and all women who had previously had a cesarean section in the skin-to-skin group (30%) rated their experience at 10 points compared with their previous cesarean section without skin-to-skin contact.
 

Implementing skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section

Betsy M. Collins, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that while some of the findings were largely unsurprising and “confirmed a lot of the things that we already know about skin-to-skin [contact],” one major finding was the “stark difference” in the percentage of new birth parents who started breastfeeding after skin-to-skin contact and were still breastfeeding at 1 month postpartum compared with birth parents in the control group. She was not involved with the study and noted that the results complement recommendations from the World Health Organization on starting breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and continuing breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life.

“That was likely one of the greatest take-home points from the study ... that early skin-to-skin really promoted initiation of breastfeeding,” Dr. Collins said.

Two reasons why skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section isn’t regularly provided is that it can be difficult for personnel and safety reasons to have an extra nurse to continue monitoring the health of the newborn in the operating room, and there is a lack of culture supporting of skin-to-skin contact in the OR, Dr. Collins explained.

“Just like anything else, if it’s built into your standard operating procedure, then you have everything set up in place to do that initial assessment of the infant and then get the baby skin-to-skin as quickly as possible,” she said. If it’s your standard operating procedure to not provide skin-to-skin contact, she said, then there is a little bit more inertia to overcome to start providing it as a standard procedure.

At her center, Dr. Collins said skin-to-skin contact is initiated as soon as possible after birth, even in the operating room. The steps to implementing that policy involved getting the anesthesiology department on board with supporting the policy in the OR and training the circulating nursing staff to ensure a that nurse is available to monitor the newborn.

“I think the most important thing to know is that it’s absolutely doable and that you just have to have a champion just like any other quality initiative,” she said. One of the best ways to do that is to have the patients themselves request it, she noted, compared with its being requested by a physician or nurse.

“I think some patients are disappointed when they have to undergo cesarean delivery or feel like they’re missing out if they can’t have a vaginal delivery,” Dr. Collins said. Immediate skin-to-skin contact is “very good for not only physiology, as we read about in this paper – all the things they said about the benefits of skin-to-skin [contact] are true – but it’s really good for mental health. That bonding begins right away.”

As a birth parent, being separated from your newborn for several hours after a cesarean section, on the other hand, can be “pretty devastating,” Dr. Collins said.

“I think this is something that, once it becomes a standard of care, it will be expected that most hospitals should be doing this,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Collins report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

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