MDedge ObGyn

Booster shot protection against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant appears to fade in about 10 weeks, according to new data from Britain.

U.K. health officials shared the data just before Christmas and noted that there haven’t been enough severe cases of the Omicron variant to calculate how well boosters protect against severe disease. But they believe the extra shots provide significant protection against hospitalization and death.

“It will be a few weeks before effectiveness against severe disease with Omicron can be estimated,” U.K. Health Security Agency officials wrote in the report. “However, based on experience with previous variants, this is likely to be substantially higher than the estimates against symptomatic disease.”

Since countries began reporting Omicron cases in November, multiple studies have suggested the variant is better at escaping antibodies from vaccination and previous infection, according to the New York Times. The U.K. report adds to that, noting that both the initial vaccine series and booster doses were less effective and faded faster against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant.

Among those who received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a booster of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was 60% effective at preventing symptomatic disease 2 to 4 weeks after the shot. But after 10 weeks, the Pfizer booster was 35% effective, and the Moderna booster was 45% effective. (The AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized in the United States, but the Johnson & Johnson shot uses a similar technology, the New York Times reported.)

Among those who received three Pfizer doses, vaccine effectiveness was 70% about a week after the booster but dropped to 45% after 10 weeks. At the same time, those who received an initial two-dose series of the Pfizer vaccine and then a Moderna booster seemed to have 75% effectiveness up to 9 weeks.

The report was based on an analysis of 148,000 Delta cases and 68,000 Omicron cases in the United Kingdom through Dec. 20. So far, the U.K. health officials wrote, Omicron infections appear to be less severe and less likely to lead to hospitalization than Delta infections. At that time, 132 people with lab-confirmed Omicron had been admitted to hospitals, and 14 deaths had been reported among ages 52-96.

“This analysis is preliminary because of the small numbers of Omicron cases currently in hospital and the limited spread of Omicron into older age groups as yet,” the report said.

The reinfection rate has also increased for the Omicron variant, the report found. Among the 116,000 people who had an Omicron infection, about 11,000 -- or 9.5% -- were linked to a previously confirmed infection, which is likely an undercount of reinfections. In the data analyzed, 69 Omicron cases were a third episode of COVID-19 infection, and 290 cases occurred 60-89 days after a first infection.

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

Booster shot protection against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant appears to fade in about 10 weeks, according to new data from Britain.

U.K. health officials shared the data just before Christmas and noted that there haven’t been enough severe cases of the Omicron variant to calculate how well boosters protect against severe disease. But they believe the extra shots provide significant protection against hospitalization and death.

“It will be a few weeks before effectiveness against severe disease with Omicron can be estimated,” U.K. Health Security Agency officials wrote in the report. “However, based on experience with previous variants, this is likely to be substantially higher than the estimates against symptomatic disease.”

Since countries began reporting Omicron cases in November, multiple studies have suggested the variant is better at escaping antibodies from vaccination and previous infection, according to the New York Times. The U.K. report adds to that, noting that both the initial vaccine series and booster doses were less effective and faded faster against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant.

Among those who received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a booster of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was 60% effective at preventing symptomatic disease 2 to 4 weeks after the shot. But after 10 weeks, the Pfizer booster was 35% effective, and the Moderna booster was 45% effective. (The AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized in the United States, but the Johnson & Johnson shot uses a similar technology, the New York Times reported.)

Among those who received three Pfizer doses, vaccine effectiveness was 70% about a week after the booster but dropped to 45% after 10 weeks. At the same time, those who received an initial two-dose series of the Pfizer vaccine and then a Moderna booster seemed to have 75% effectiveness up to 9 weeks.

The report was based on an analysis of 148,000 Delta cases and 68,000 Omicron cases in the United Kingdom through Dec. 20. So far, the U.K. health officials wrote, Omicron infections appear to be less severe and less likely to lead to hospitalization than Delta infections. At that time, 132 people with lab-confirmed Omicron had been admitted to hospitals, and 14 deaths had been reported among ages 52-96.

“This analysis is preliminary because of the small numbers of Omicron cases currently in hospital and the limited spread of Omicron into older age groups as yet,” the report said.

The reinfection rate has also increased for the Omicron variant, the report found. Among the 116,000 people who had an Omicron infection, about 11,000 -- or 9.5% -- were linked to a previously confirmed infection, which is likely an undercount of reinfections. In the data analyzed, 69 Omicron cases were a third episode of COVID-19 infection, and 290 cases occurred 60-89 days after a first infection.

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

Booster shot protection against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant appears to fade in about 10 weeks, according to new data from Britain.

U.K. health officials shared the data just before Christmas and noted that there haven’t been enough severe cases of the Omicron variant to calculate how well boosters protect against severe disease. But they believe the extra shots provide significant protection against hospitalization and death.

“It will be a few weeks before effectiveness against severe disease with Omicron can be estimated,” U.K. Health Security Agency officials wrote in the report. “However, based on experience with previous variants, this is likely to be substantially higher than the estimates against symptomatic disease.”

Since countries began reporting Omicron cases in November, multiple studies have suggested the variant is better at escaping antibodies from vaccination and previous infection, according to the New York Times. The U.K. report adds to that, noting that both the initial vaccine series and booster doses were less effective and faded faster against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant.

Among those who received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a booster of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was 60% effective at preventing symptomatic disease 2 to 4 weeks after the shot. But after 10 weeks, the Pfizer booster was 35% effective, and the Moderna booster was 45% effective. (The AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized in the United States, but the Johnson & Johnson shot uses a similar technology, the New York Times reported.)

Among those who received three Pfizer doses, vaccine effectiveness was 70% about a week after the booster but dropped to 45% after 10 weeks. At the same time, those who received an initial two-dose series of the Pfizer vaccine and then a Moderna booster seemed to have 75% effectiveness up to 9 weeks.

The report was based on an analysis of 148,000 Delta cases and 68,000 Omicron cases in the United Kingdom through Dec. 20. So far, the U.K. health officials wrote, Omicron infections appear to be less severe and less likely to lead to hospitalization than Delta infections. At that time, 132 people with lab-confirmed Omicron had been admitted to hospitals, and 14 deaths had been reported among ages 52-96.

“This analysis is preliminary because of the small numbers of Omicron cases currently in hospital and the limited spread of Omicron into older age groups as yet,” the report said.

The reinfection rate has also increased for the Omicron variant, the report found. Among the 116,000 people who had an Omicron infection, about 11,000 -- or 9.5% -- were linked to a previously confirmed infection, which is likely an undercount of reinfections. In the data analyzed, 69 Omicron cases were a third episode of COVID-19 infection, and 290 cases occurred 60-89 days after a first infection.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

Because of the increasing popularity and success of in vitro fertilization, the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility has steadily morphed toward the treatment of infertility. Nevertheless, a physician board certified in reproductive endocrinology and infertility is the referring physician of choice regarding prolactin disorders and gynecologists should be familiar with the symptoms and sequela of prolactin elevations. This month’s column will address when to obtain a serum prolactin and how to appropriately manage hyperprolactinemia.

Of all the anterior pituitary hormones (adrenocorticotropic hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, growth hormone, luteinizing hormone, prolactin, thyroid-stimulating hormone ), prolactin is the only one under tonic inhibition by dopamine. Disturbances in this dopaminergic pathway result in elevated serum prolactin. The normal range for prolactin is approximately 5-20 ng/mL.

In the nonpregnant state, little is known regarding the purpose of prolactin, which is produced by the anterior pituitary cluster of cells called lactotrophs. To prepare the breast for postpartum lactation, increases in prolactin are necessary and sustained throughout pregnancy. Second to pregnancy, amenorrhea can occur in 10%-20% of cases of hyperprolactinemia. Outside of pregnancy, elevations in prolactin result in hypogonadism, through gonadotropin-releasing hormone suppression, resulting in infertility (48%), headache (39%), oligomenorrhea (29%) and galactorrhea (24%).¹ Most hypogonadal symptoms are more likely to occur with prolactin levels greater than 100 ng/mL, whereas infertility and ovulation dysfunction can occur with mild to moderate hyperprolactinemia, respectively. Prolonged amenorrhea can risk bone mineral density loss.

While the focus of our discussion is the effect of prolactin on women, men with hyperprolactinemia can experience hypogonadotropic hypogonadism with resultant decreased libido, impotence, infertility, gynecomastia, or, rarely, galactorrhea.²

The three Ps – physiological, pharmacologic, pathological

Physiological causes of hyperprolactinemia include rising estradiol during the late follicular phase and into the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle or while taking combined oral contraception, nipple stimulation, pregnancy, lactation, meals, sleep, and stress.

Drugs can interrupt the dopaminergic pathway, thereby elevating serum prolactin but usually not above 100 ng/mL, except for the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which can cause marked elevation up to 300 or even 400 ng/mL. Medications that can cause hyperprolactinemia are estrogens, neuroleptic drugs such as risperidone, metoclopramide, antidepressant drugs, cimetidine, methyldopa, and verapamil.

A pituitary MRI can diagnose an adenoma, that is, a collection of cells in the pituitary that are responsible for hyperprolactinemia and is named based on its size. Microadenomas are less than 1 cm and are typically associated with serum prolactin values below 200 ng/mL. Macroadenomas can worsen while a patient is on combined oral contraception and during pregnancy; fortunately, this is not the case with a microadenoma.

Hypothyroidism can elevate serum prolactin since thyrotropin releasing hormone is known to stimulate prolactin secretion.³ Consequently, when a patient presents with both hypothyroidism and hyperprolactinemia, thyroid replacement should be initiated for thyroid regulation and potential restoration of prolactin levels. If hyperprolactinemia persists, then further evaluation is required. Chronic renal impairment can also elevate prolactin levels due to decreased clearance.
 

Management

The appropriate evaluation of hyperprolactinemia consists of a history to disclose medications, identify galactorrhea, and visual changes. Because of an adenoma compressing the optic chiasm, partial blindness may occur where vision is lost in the outer half of both the right and left visual field, called bitemporal hemianopsia. Mild elevations in prolactin should be tested at a time when physiological influences are at a minimum, that is, during menses, fasting, and in late morning.⁴ Persistent elevations should be appropriately evaluated rather than by using the empiric “shotgun” approach of prescribing a dopamine agonist. Laboratory testing for repeated elevations in prolactin includes a pituitary MRI looking for a mass in the hypothalamic-pituitary region that interrupts dopamine suppression.

Treatment of hyperprolactinemia begins with a dopamine agonist and is indicated when there is hypogonadism or intolerable galactorrhea. Cabergoline is the first choice because of effectiveness (reduced adenoma size in greater than 90% of patients) and lesser side effects, particularly nausea, than bromocriptine. Dopamine agonists, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, belong to the category of ergot-derived dopamine agonists and have been used to treat Parkinson’s disease. At high doses used to treat Parkinson’s, cabergoline is associated with an increased risk of valvular heart disease. In the United States, pergolide was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in March 2007 because of this risk. At the lower doses generally used for the treatment of hyperprolactinemia, cabergoline is probably not associated with excess risk.⁵

Newer dopamine agonists are known as nonergot. These are pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and apomorphine. They have not been associated with a risk of heart damage and can be prescribed.

The initial prescribing dose of cabergoline should be 0.25 mg twice a week or 0.5 mg once a week. If bromocriptine is used, the starting dose is 1.25 mg after dinner or at bedtime for 1 week, then increasing to 1.25 mg twice a day (after breakfast and after dinner or at bedtime to reduce nausea and fatigue). After 1 month of a dopamine agonist, the patient should be evaluated for side effects and a serum prolactin level should be obtained. With a normal prolactin level, gonadal function will probably return within a few months. The dopamine agonist should typically be discontinued with pregnancy as pregnancy increases prolactin physiologically.

Treatment of a macroadenoma is essential when the tumor is large enough to cause neurologic symptoms, such as visual impairment or headache, and is preferable when it is invasive or when there are enlarging microadenomas since they are likely to continue to grow and become symptomatic. About 95% of microadenomas have not been shown to increase in size during 4-6 years of observation.⁶

Transsphenoidal surgery should be considered when there is:

• Persistent hyperprolactinemia and/or size of the adenoma, with associated symptoms or signs despite several months of dopamine agonist treatment at high doses.
• Presence of a giant lactotroph adenoma (e.g., >3 cm) with pregnancy desired including those whose adenoma responds to a dopamine agonist – to avoid significant growth during pregnancy while off medication.

Data from over 6,000 pregnancies suggest that the administration of bromocriptine during the first month of pregnancy does not harm the fetus.⁷

Discontinuing treatment

Three scenarios may allow for cessation of dopamine agonist therapy. The first is when a patient has had a normal serum prolactin test following 2 years of low-dose dopamine agonist. Another is the patient who had hyperprolactinemia and a microadenoma that responded to treatment with a normal prolactin level and no further evidence of an adenoma by MRI for at least 2 years. Lastly, the patient who had a macroadenoma prior to treatment and a subsequent normal serum prolactin level without an adenoma for at least 2 years.

Like the management of thyroid dysfunction, our field must be aware of prolactin disorders for early detection, prompt referral, and appropriate management to minimize long-term consequences.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Bayrak A et al. Fertil Steril. 2005 Jul;84(1):181-5.

2. Carter JN et al. N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 19;299(16):847-52.

3. Sachson R et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;287:972.

4. Singh SP and Singh TP. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 1984;45(2):137-41.

5. Valassi E et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Mar;95(3):1025-33.

6. Sisam DA et al. Fertil Steril. 1987 Jul;48(1):67-71.

7. Molitch ME. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Dec;25(6):885-96.

Because of the increasing popularity and success of in vitro fertilization, the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility has steadily morphed toward the treatment of infertility. Nevertheless, a physician board certified in reproductive endocrinology and infertility is the referring physician of choice regarding prolactin disorders and gynecologists should be familiar with the symptoms and sequela of prolactin elevations. This month’s column will address when to obtain a serum prolactin and how to appropriately manage hyperprolactinemia.

Of all the anterior pituitary hormones (adrenocorticotropic hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, growth hormone, luteinizing hormone, prolactin, thyroid-stimulating hormone ), prolactin is the only one under tonic inhibition by dopamine. Disturbances in this dopaminergic pathway result in elevated serum prolactin. The normal range for prolactin is approximately 5-20 ng/mL.

In the nonpregnant state, little is known regarding the purpose of prolactin, which is produced by the anterior pituitary cluster of cells called lactotrophs. To prepare the breast for postpartum lactation, increases in prolactin are necessary and sustained throughout pregnancy. Second to pregnancy, amenorrhea can occur in 10%-20% of cases of hyperprolactinemia. Outside of pregnancy, elevations in prolactin result in hypogonadism, through gonadotropin-releasing hormone suppression, resulting in infertility (48%), headache (39%), oligomenorrhea (29%) and galactorrhea (24%).¹ Most hypogonadal symptoms are more likely to occur with prolactin levels greater than 100 ng/mL, whereas infertility and ovulation dysfunction can occur with mild to moderate hyperprolactinemia, respectively. Prolonged amenorrhea can risk bone mineral density loss.

While the focus of our discussion is the effect of prolactin on women, men with hyperprolactinemia can experience hypogonadotropic hypogonadism with resultant decreased libido, impotence, infertility, gynecomastia, or, rarely, galactorrhea.²

The three Ps – physiological, pharmacologic, pathological

Physiological causes of hyperprolactinemia include rising estradiol during the late follicular phase and into the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle or while taking combined oral contraception, nipple stimulation, pregnancy, lactation, meals, sleep, and stress.

Drugs can interrupt the dopaminergic pathway, thereby elevating serum prolactin but usually not above 100 ng/mL, except for the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which can cause marked elevation up to 300 or even 400 ng/mL. Medications that can cause hyperprolactinemia are estrogens, neuroleptic drugs such as risperidone, metoclopramide, antidepressant drugs, cimetidine, methyldopa, and verapamil.

A pituitary MRI can diagnose an adenoma, that is, a collection of cells in the pituitary that are responsible for hyperprolactinemia and is named based on its size. Microadenomas are less than 1 cm and are typically associated with serum prolactin values below 200 ng/mL. Macroadenomas can worsen while a patient is on combined oral contraception and during pregnancy; fortunately, this is not the case with a microadenoma.

Hypothyroidism can elevate serum prolactin since thyrotropin releasing hormone is known to stimulate prolactin secretion.³ Consequently, when a patient presents with both hypothyroidism and hyperprolactinemia, thyroid replacement should be initiated for thyroid regulation and potential restoration of prolactin levels. If hyperprolactinemia persists, then further evaluation is required. Chronic renal impairment can also elevate prolactin levels due to decreased clearance.
 

Management

The appropriate evaluation of hyperprolactinemia consists of a history to disclose medications, identify galactorrhea, and visual changes. Because of an adenoma compressing the optic chiasm, partial blindness may occur where vision is lost in the outer half of both the right and left visual field, called bitemporal hemianopsia. Mild elevations in prolactin should be tested at a time when physiological influences are at a minimum, that is, during menses, fasting, and in late morning.⁴ Persistent elevations should be appropriately evaluated rather than by using the empiric “shotgun” approach of prescribing a dopamine agonist. Laboratory testing for repeated elevations in prolactin includes a pituitary MRI looking for a mass in the hypothalamic-pituitary region that interrupts dopamine suppression.

Treatment of hyperprolactinemia begins with a dopamine agonist and is indicated when there is hypogonadism or intolerable galactorrhea. Cabergoline is the first choice because of effectiveness (reduced adenoma size in greater than 90% of patients) and lesser side effects, particularly nausea, than bromocriptine. Dopamine agonists, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, belong to the category of ergot-derived dopamine agonists and have been used to treat Parkinson’s disease. At high doses used to treat Parkinson’s, cabergoline is associated with an increased risk of valvular heart disease. In the United States, pergolide was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in March 2007 because of this risk. At the lower doses generally used for the treatment of hyperprolactinemia, cabergoline is probably not associated with excess risk.⁵

Newer dopamine agonists are known as nonergot. These are pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and apomorphine. They have not been associated with a risk of heart damage and can be prescribed.

The initial prescribing dose of cabergoline should be 0.25 mg twice a week or 0.5 mg once a week. If bromocriptine is used, the starting dose is 1.25 mg after dinner or at bedtime for 1 week, then increasing to 1.25 mg twice a day (after breakfast and after dinner or at bedtime to reduce nausea and fatigue). After 1 month of a dopamine agonist, the patient should be evaluated for side effects and a serum prolactin level should be obtained. With a normal prolactin level, gonadal function will probably return within a few months. The dopamine agonist should typically be discontinued with pregnancy as pregnancy increases prolactin physiologically.

Treatment of a macroadenoma is essential when the tumor is large enough to cause neurologic symptoms, such as visual impairment or headache, and is preferable when it is invasive or when there are enlarging microadenomas since they are likely to continue to grow and become symptomatic. About 95% of microadenomas have not been shown to increase in size during 4-6 years of observation.⁶

Transsphenoidal surgery should be considered when there is:

• Persistent hyperprolactinemia and/or size of the adenoma, with associated symptoms or signs despite several months of dopamine agonist treatment at high doses.
• Presence of a giant lactotroph adenoma (e.g., >3 cm) with pregnancy desired including those whose adenoma responds to a dopamine agonist – to avoid significant growth during pregnancy while off medication.

Data from over 6,000 pregnancies suggest that the administration of bromocriptine during the first month of pregnancy does not harm the fetus.⁷

Discontinuing treatment

Three scenarios may allow for cessation of dopamine agonist therapy. The first is when a patient has had a normal serum prolactin test following 2 years of low-dose dopamine agonist. Another is the patient who had hyperprolactinemia and a microadenoma that responded to treatment with a normal prolactin level and no further evidence of an adenoma by MRI for at least 2 years. Lastly, the patient who had a macroadenoma prior to treatment and a subsequent normal serum prolactin level without an adenoma for at least 2 years.

Like the management of thyroid dysfunction, our field must be aware of prolactin disorders for early detection, prompt referral, and appropriate management to minimize long-term consequences.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Bayrak A et al. Fertil Steril. 2005 Jul;84(1):181-5.

2. Carter JN et al. N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 19;299(16):847-52.

3. Sachson R et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;287:972.

4. Singh SP and Singh TP. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 1984;45(2):137-41.

5. Valassi E et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Mar;95(3):1025-33.

6. Sisam DA et al. Fertil Steril. 1987 Jul;48(1):67-71.

7. Molitch ME. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Dec;25(6):885-96.

Because of the increasing popularity and success of in vitro fertilization, the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility has steadily morphed toward the treatment of infertility. Nevertheless, a physician board certified in reproductive endocrinology and infertility is the referring physician of choice regarding prolactin disorders and gynecologists should be familiar with the symptoms and sequela of prolactin elevations. This month’s column will address when to obtain a serum prolactin and how to appropriately manage hyperprolactinemia.

Of all the anterior pituitary hormones (adrenocorticotropic hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, growth hormone, luteinizing hormone, prolactin, thyroid-stimulating hormone ), prolactin is the only one under tonic inhibition by dopamine. Disturbances in this dopaminergic pathway result in elevated serum prolactin. The normal range for prolactin is approximately 5-20 ng/mL.

In the nonpregnant state, little is known regarding the purpose of prolactin, which is produced by the anterior pituitary cluster of cells called lactotrophs. To prepare the breast for postpartum lactation, increases in prolactin are necessary and sustained throughout pregnancy. Second to pregnancy, amenorrhea can occur in 10%-20% of cases of hyperprolactinemia. Outside of pregnancy, elevations in prolactin result in hypogonadism, through gonadotropin-releasing hormone suppression, resulting in infertility (48%), headache (39%), oligomenorrhea (29%) and galactorrhea (24%).¹ Most hypogonadal symptoms are more likely to occur with prolactin levels greater than 100 ng/mL, whereas infertility and ovulation dysfunction can occur with mild to moderate hyperprolactinemia, respectively. Prolonged amenorrhea can risk bone mineral density loss.

While the focus of our discussion is the effect of prolactin on women, men with hyperprolactinemia can experience hypogonadotropic hypogonadism with resultant decreased libido, impotence, infertility, gynecomastia, or, rarely, galactorrhea.²

The three Ps – physiological, pharmacologic, pathological

Physiological causes of hyperprolactinemia include rising estradiol during the late follicular phase and into the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle or while taking combined oral contraception, nipple stimulation, pregnancy, lactation, meals, sleep, and stress.

Drugs can interrupt the dopaminergic pathway, thereby elevating serum prolactin but usually not above 100 ng/mL, except for the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which can cause marked elevation up to 300 or even 400 ng/mL. Medications that can cause hyperprolactinemia are estrogens, neuroleptic drugs such as risperidone, metoclopramide, antidepressant drugs, cimetidine, methyldopa, and verapamil.

A pituitary MRI can diagnose an adenoma, that is, a collection of cells in the pituitary that are responsible for hyperprolactinemia and is named based on its size. Microadenomas are less than 1 cm and are typically associated with serum prolactin values below 200 ng/mL. Macroadenomas can worsen while a patient is on combined oral contraception and during pregnancy; fortunately, this is not the case with a microadenoma.

Hypothyroidism can elevate serum prolactin since thyrotropin releasing hormone is known to stimulate prolactin secretion.³ Consequently, when a patient presents with both hypothyroidism and hyperprolactinemia, thyroid replacement should be initiated for thyroid regulation and potential restoration of prolactin levels. If hyperprolactinemia persists, then further evaluation is required. Chronic renal impairment can also elevate prolactin levels due to decreased clearance.
 

Management

The appropriate evaluation of hyperprolactinemia consists of a history to disclose medications, identify galactorrhea, and visual changes. Because of an adenoma compressing the optic chiasm, partial blindness may occur where vision is lost in the outer half of both the right and left visual field, called bitemporal hemianopsia. Mild elevations in prolactin should be tested at a time when physiological influences are at a minimum, that is, during menses, fasting, and in late morning.⁴ Persistent elevations should be appropriately evaluated rather than by using the empiric “shotgun” approach of prescribing a dopamine agonist. Laboratory testing for repeated elevations in prolactin includes a pituitary MRI looking for a mass in the hypothalamic-pituitary region that interrupts dopamine suppression.

Treatment of hyperprolactinemia begins with a dopamine agonist and is indicated when there is hypogonadism or intolerable galactorrhea. Cabergoline is the first choice because of effectiveness (reduced adenoma size in greater than 90% of patients) and lesser side effects, particularly nausea, than bromocriptine. Dopamine agonists, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, belong to the category of ergot-derived dopamine agonists and have been used to treat Parkinson’s disease. At high doses used to treat Parkinson’s, cabergoline is associated with an increased risk of valvular heart disease. In the United States, pergolide was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in March 2007 because of this risk. At the lower doses generally used for the treatment of hyperprolactinemia, cabergoline is probably not associated with excess risk.⁵

Newer dopamine agonists are known as nonergot. These are pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and apomorphine. They have not been associated with a risk of heart damage and can be prescribed.

The initial prescribing dose of cabergoline should be 0.25 mg twice a week or 0.5 mg once a week. If bromocriptine is used, the starting dose is 1.25 mg after dinner or at bedtime for 1 week, then increasing to 1.25 mg twice a day (after breakfast and after dinner or at bedtime to reduce nausea and fatigue). After 1 month of a dopamine agonist, the patient should be evaluated for side effects and a serum prolactin level should be obtained. With a normal prolactin level, gonadal function will probably return within a few months. The dopamine agonist should typically be discontinued with pregnancy as pregnancy increases prolactin physiologically.

Treatment of a macroadenoma is essential when the tumor is large enough to cause neurologic symptoms, such as visual impairment or headache, and is preferable when it is invasive or when there are enlarging microadenomas since they are likely to continue to grow and become symptomatic. About 95% of microadenomas have not been shown to increase in size during 4-6 years of observation.⁶

Transsphenoidal surgery should be considered when there is:

• Persistent hyperprolactinemia and/or size of the adenoma, with associated symptoms or signs despite several months of dopamine agonist treatment at high doses.
• Presence of a giant lactotroph adenoma (e.g., >3 cm) with pregnancy desired including those whose adenoma responds to a dopamine agonist – to avoid significant growth during pregnancy while off medication.

Data from over 6,000 pregnancies suggest that the administration of bromocriptine during the first month of pregnancy does not harm the fetus.⁷

Discontinuing treatment

Three scenarios may allow for cessation of dopamine agonist therapy. The first is when a patient has had a normal serum prolactin test following 2 years of low-dose dopamine agonist. Another is the patient who had hyperprolactinemia and a microadenoma that responded to treatment with a normal prolactin level and no further evidence of an adenoma by MRI for at least 2 years. Lastly, the patient who had a macroadenoma prior to treatment and a subsequent normal serum prolactin level without an adenoma for at least 2 years.

Like the management of thyroid dysfunction, our field must be aware of prolactin disorders for early detection, prompt referral, and appropriate management to minimize long-term consequences.

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Bayrak A et al. Fertil Steril. 2005 Jul;84(1):181-5.

2. Carter JN et al. N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 19;299(16):847-52.

3. Sachson R et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;287:972.

4. Singh SP and Singh TP. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 1984;45(2):137-41.

5. Valassi E et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Mar;95(3):1025-33.

6. Sisam DA et al. Fertil Steril. 1987 Jul;48(1):67-71.

7. Molitch ME. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Dec;25(6):885-96.

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

What is the most appropriate treatment for trichomonas infection in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Trichomonas infection should be treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Metronidazole also can be given as a single oral 2-g dose. This treatment is not quite as effective as the multidose regimen, but it may be appropriate for patients who are not likely to be adherent with the longer course of treatment.

Resistance to metronidazole is rare; in such instances, oral tinidazole 2 g in a single dose may be effective.

What is the most appropriate treatment for trichomonas infection in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Trichomonas infection should be treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Metronidazole also can be given as a single oral 2-g dose. This treatment is not quite as effective as the multidose regimen, but it may be appropriate for patients who are not likely to be adherent with the longer course of treatment.

Resistance to metronidazole is rare; in such instances, oral tinidazole 2 g in a single dose may be effective.

What is the most appropriate treatment for trichomonas infection in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Trichomonas infection should be treated with oral metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 7 days. Metronidazole also can be given as a single oral 2-g dose. This treatment is not quite as effective as the multidose regimen, but it may be appropriate for patients who are not likely to be adherent with the longer course of treatment.

Resistance to metronidazole is rare; in such instances, oral tinidazole 2 g in a single dose may be effective.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

Axilla swelling, one of the side effects of the initial COVID-19 vaccine series in women, has also materialized with the boosters.

This inflammation is caused by the enlargement of lymph nodes and can show up as an abnormal finding on mammograms and other types of chest scans, causing concern and even the need for additional imaging and follow up, wrote Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Lymph node swelling is a normal immune system reaction to vaccination, and “COVID-19 vaccinations in the arm are a well-documented cause of inflammatory unilateral axillary adenopathy,” noted Dr. Lehman, in an interview. The side effect will occur on the side of the body where the patient received a vaccine, and it is not always noticeable to the woman experiencing it, she said.

“We’re finding that the patients’ bodies are responding to the booster in many ways that are similar to the initial COVID vaccines, with lymph node swelling, muscle aches and pains, headaches, and so on,” said Dr. Lehman, who is chief of breast imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. There have been no real differences in reactions between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, she added.

Because axillary lymph node swelling can obscure mammogram results, staff of at least a few imaging centers, including Penn State Breast Center in Hershey, Pa., and Providence Women’s Imaging Center in Torrance, Calif., told this news organization that they are asking women to delay mammogram imaging either 6 weeks or 4-6 weeks after getting a COVID-19 booster.
 

Experts’ suggestions on mammograms, boosters timing

Other experts, including Jessica Leung, MD, acknowledged that vaccine-related reactive adenopathy is seen after the booster dose and provided recommendations for the timing of getting mammograms and the booster with this in mind.

“I would recommend getting the screening mammogram first, which can be followed immediately by vaccination, even on the same day,” said Jessica Leung, MD, a professor of diagnostic radiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Tex.

“If this is not possible from the scheduling perspective, then the patient should consult her health care provider regarding whether it is okay to wait a bit after receiving the vaccine before getting her screening mammogram.”

The answer to that question will likely depend on the time interval since the prior mammogram and the patient’s personal risk factors for developing breast cancer. Dr. Leung noted. “This is all predicated on the assumption that the patient is asymptomatic. If she has any symptoms, for example a palpable breast lump, then she should seek medical attention regardless of timing of vaccination.”

The same holds true for boosters, she said.

She emphasized that careful consideration should be given before delaying the mammogram. “The medical community has a great deal more knowledge at this time than in the early days of COVID-19 vaccination, so we are often able to identify reactive adenopathy related to vaccination. If patients were to delay the mammogram, any reactive adenopathy may persist, on average, for 4-6 weeks.”

Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president at Texas Oncology, professor at the University of Texas at Austin, provided a specific example of when a patient should not delay the diagnostic imaging, which is “in the event that there is an abnormal mass in the breast that requires evaluation.”

Providers are now prepared to address these issues, she added.
 

Dr. Lehman’s nuanced recommendations

“It’s easy to get both a mammogram and booster, and just a matter of timing them – so that the reaction doesn’t interfere with the mammography results,” Dr. Lehman said.

But she emphasized that women should not be choosing between their mammograms or a booster. “We are now saying the same thing that we did with the initial vaccine,” said Dr. Lehman. “We don’t want patients delaying their mammograms, and we don’t want them delaying their boosters – both are critical to staying healthy.”

In her center, a model was developed to navigate vaccine-associated adenopathy. While this approach was developed for the primary vaccine series, the same applies for the booster, which is essentially a third dose of the same vaccine, explained Dr. Lehman.

When patients present for mammography, ultrasound, or MRI, the technologist will document their COVID-19 vaccination status (first or second dose or booster), the date it was given, and the location. Adding vaccination documentation to intake forms helps to support appropriate management of patients who undergo imaging after COVID-19 vaccination. Six weeks is used as the cutoff point for defining “recent” vaccination.

For patients who are getting a screening mammography or MRI, and who have no symptoms beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy on the same side of the body where they received the COVID-19 vaccination (given in the arm) within a 6-week period, the following is included in the screening mammography or screening MRI report: “In the specific setting of a patient with documented recent (within the past 6 weeks) COVID-19 vaccination in the ipsilateral arm, axillary adenopathy is a benign imaging finding. No further imaging is indicated at this time. If there is clinical concern that persists more than 6 weeks after the patient received the final vaccine dose, axillary ultrasound is recommended.”

The experts interviewed reported no conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”