User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Hormone therapy less effective in menopausal women with obesity
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said
“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”
Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater.
The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).
There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.
Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).
The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
Women with obesity are undertreated
Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.
“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.
“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.
Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.
Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.
Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.
The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said
“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”
Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater.
The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).
There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.
Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).
The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
Women with obesity are undertreated
Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.
“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.
“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.
Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.
Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.
Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.
The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a small, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
More than 40% of women over age 40 in the United States have obesity, presenter Anita Pershad, MD, an ob.gyn. medical resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, told attendees. Yet most of the large-scale studies investigating perimenopausal and postmenopausal hormone therapy included participants without major medical comorbidities, so little data exist on how effectively HT works in women with these comorbidities, she said
“The main takeaway of our study is that obesity may worsen a woman’s menopausal symptoms and limit the amount of relief she gets from hormone therapy,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “It remains unclear if hormone therapy is less effective in women with obesity overall, or if the expected efficacy can be achieved with alternative design and administration routes. A potential mechanism of action for the observed decreased effect could be due to adipose tissue acting as a heat insulator, promoting the effects of vasomotor symptoms.”
Dr. Pershad and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of 119 patients who presented to a menopause clinic at a Midsouth urban academic medical center between July 2018 and December 2022. Obesity was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater.
The patients with and without obesity were similar in terms of age, duration of menopause, use of hormone therapy, and therapy acceptance, but patients with obesity were more likely to identify themselves as Black (71% vs. 40%). Women with obesity were also significantly more likely than women without obesity to report vasomotor symptoms (74% vs. 45%, P = .002), genitourinary/vulvovaginal symptoms (60% vs. 21%, P < .001), mood disturbances (11% vs. 0%, P = .18), and decreased libido (29% vs. 11%, P = .017).
There were no significant differences in comorbidities between women with and without obesity, and among women who received systemic or localized HT, the same standard dosing was used for both groups.
Women with obesity were much less likely to see a satisfying reduction in their menopausal symptoms than women without obesity (odds ratio 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.64; P = .006), though the subgroups for each category of HT were small. Among the 20 women receiving systemic hormone therapy, only 1 of the 12 with obesity (8.3%) reported improvement in symptoms, compared with 7 of the 8 women without obesity (88%; P = .0004). Among 33 women using localized hormone therapy, 46% of the 24 women with obesity vs. 89% of the 9 women without obesity experienced symptom improvement (P = .026).
The proportions of women reporting relief from only lifestyle modifications or from nonhormonal medications, such as SSRIs/SNRIs, trazodone, and clonidine, were not statistically different. There were 33 women who relied only on lifestyle modifications, with 31% of the 16 women with obesity and 59% of the 17 women without obesity reporting improvement in their symptoms (P = .112). Similarly, among the 33 women using nonhormonal medications, 75% of the 20 women with obesity and 77% of the 13 women without obesity experienced relief (P = .9).
Women with obesity are undertreated
Dr. Pershad emphasized the need to improve care and counseling for diverse patients seeking treatment for menopausal symptoms.
“More research is needed to examine how women with medical comorbidities are uniquely impacted by menopause and respond to therapies,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. “This can be achieved by actively including more diverse patient populations in women’s health studies, burdened by the social determinants of health and medical comorbidities such as obesity.”
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director for Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., and medical director for The Menopause Society, was not surprised by the findings, particularly given that women with obesity tend to have more hot flashes and night sweats as a result of their extra weight. However, dosage data was not adjusted for BMI in the study and data on hormone levels was unavailable, she said, so it’s difficult to determine from the data whether HT was less effective for women with obesity or whether they were underdosed.
“I think women with obesity are undertreated,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “My guess is people are afraid. Women with obesity also may have other comorbidities,” such as hypertension and diabetes, she said, and “the greater the number of cardiovascular risk factors, the higher risk hormone therapy is.” Providers may therefore be leery of prescribing HT or prescribing it at an appropriately high enough dose to treat menopausal symptoms.
Common practice is to start patients at the lowest dose and titrate up according to symptoms, but “if people are afraid of it, they’re going to start the lowest dose” and may not increase it, Dr. Faubion said. She noted that other nonhormonal options are available, though providers should be conscientious about selecting ones whose adverse events do not include weight gain.
Although the study focused on an understudied population within hormone therapy research, the study was limited by its small size, low overall use of hormone therapy, recall bias, and the researchers’ inability to control for other medications the participants may have been taking.
Dr. Pershad said she is continuing research to try to identify the mechanisms underlying the reduced efficacy in women with obesity.
The research did not use any external funding. Dr. Pershad had no industry disclosures, but her colleagues reported honoraria from or speaking for TherapeuticsMD, Astella Pharma, Scynexis, Pharmavite, and Pfizer. Dr. Faubion had no disclosures.
AT THE MENOPAUSE SOCIETY ANNUAL MEETING
False-positive Pap smear may indicate genitourinary syndrome
TOPLINE:
, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.
METHODOLOGY:
- Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
- They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
- A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
- The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
- Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”
SOURCE:
The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors report no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.
METHODOLOGY:
- Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
- They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
- A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
- The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
- Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”
SOURCE:
The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors report no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a poster presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting.
METHODOLOGY:
- Starting in 2010, researchers in Florida and Antigua saw an increase in the number of perimenopausal women with no history of cervical abnormalities and low risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) presenting with abnormal Pap smears at their clinics.
- They studied 1,500 women aged 30-70 from several clinics. The women had low risk for STIs, a maximum of two sexual partners, and the presence of cervical dysplasia over a period of 12 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly all (96.7%) of the women who received local estrogen treatment had a normal Pap smear following therapy.
- A high number of patients who initially presented with cervical dysplasia underwent interventions such as colposcopies, biopsies, LEEP excisions, cryotherapy, cone biopsies, and hysterectomies because of cervical atrophy.
- The researchers concluded that local estrogen treatment could save patients money spent on treatments for cervical atrophy.
- Some women who underwent cone biopsies and hysterectomies and did not receive local estrogen still had vaginal dysplasia.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this study, we report an early sign of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: false positive cervical dysplasia caused by cervicovaginal atrophy resulting from decreased estrogen levels during perimenopause,” say the investigators. “We also demonstrate how the use of local estrogen therapy can prevent a significant number of interventions and procedures, resulting in significant cost savings. This is particularly relevant as the number of Pap smears conducted in this population represents 50%-60% of all Pap smears performed on women.”
SOURCE:
The data were presented at The Menopause Society 2023 annual meeting. The study was led by Alberto Dominguez-Bali, MD, from the Miami Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Human Sexuality.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors report no limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE MENOPAUSE SOCIETY ANNUAL MEETING
What is the future for multicancer early-detection tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc, oncologist, breast cancer specialist, and director of the individualized cancer prevention program (Interception) at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France, looks into these “liquid biopsies” and shares her reservations about their potential marketing, especially to the organized care plans.
Question: What are the general principles underpinning these MCED tests?
Suzette Delaloge, MD, MSc: Despite their specificities, the general idea is to detect certain cancer markers in various body fluids (blood, urine, saliva, etc.), for example, molecules released by cancer cells (cytokines, inflammatory proteins, leptin, etc.) or distinctive features of the DNA in tumor cells. In blood, these molecules can be found in plasma or in serum. In urine, it’s more about detecting kidney, bladder, and urinary tract cancers.
Q: What sort of time frame are we looking at for these MCED tests to be used in routine practice?
Dr. Delaloge: They first appeared around 10 years ago. Development of these tests has intensified in recent years. There are numerous research laboratories, both public and private, that are developing different early-detection tests for cancer.
Some of these development processes are about to come to an end and are expected to be in regular, concrete use within 5-10 years. For the most advanced developments, the main biologic material researched and analyzed is DNA from cancer cells. We all have fragments of DNA from dead cells in our plasma (apoptosis), but cancer cells release more of these than others, and most importantly, their DNA has distinctive characteristics. The idea is to develop tests capable of detecting these characteristics.
Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers could make MCED a reality, especially for cancers for which there is no standard screening process. But at this stage of the research, there are limitations, including low sensitivity for detecting stage I cancers in validation studies and an increased risk for overdiagnosis.
Q: What specific set of characteristics are the most advanced approaches based on?
Dr. Delaloge: They’re based on the analysis of DNA methylation, a biological process by which CH3 methyl groups are added to the DNA molecule and that determines gene expression. This phenomenon differs depending on whether the cell is cancerous. Among the tests currently under development making use of this specific characteristic is the Galleri test, which is the most advanced of them all.
A previous British National Health Service study, SYMPLIFY, which was published in 2023 by researchers at the University of Oxford, was conducted in symptomatic patients attending a health center. It offers promising results in a diagnostic situation. It has nothing at all to do with screening here. A large, randomized English study, NHS-Galleri, is underway, this time involving the general population, with the aim of assessing the potential benefit of the same test as screening in 140,000 people between ages 50 and 77 years.
In the SYMPLIFY study, which was carried out in symptomatic patients attending a health center, the Galleri MCED test had a positive predictive value of 75.5%, a negative predictive value of 97.6%, a sensitivity of 66.3%, and a specificity of 98.4%. Sensitivity increased with age and cancer stage from 24.2% at stage I to 95.3% at stage IV. For cases for which a cancer signal was detected in patients with cancer, the prediction of the original site of the cancer by the MCED test was accurate in 85.2% of cases. This large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test confirms its feasibility in a symptomatic population but is not yet sufficiently accurate to “confirm or rule out the presence of cancer.” According to the authors, “in cases in which the MCED test detects a cancer signal in this context, the probability of a diagnosis of cancer being made is considerably higher and may identify cancers at sites other than those suspected during the initial referral phase, thus reducing delays in diagnosis.” A negative test means a lower likelihood of cancer but not so low that proper investigation can be ruled out. Further tests will be needed to optimize use of a negative predictive value.
Q: Does MCED testing concern all types of cancer?
Dr. Delaloge: The Galleri test is based on full profiling of DNA methylation. This allows for early diagnosis of cancer even before it can be seen on imaging tests. The issue with these tests is that they aren’t that good at early diagnosis of the most common types of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical, etc.) for which we already have more efficient means such as the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer, mammography, HPV testing, and so on.
These blood tests would thus not be aimed at replacing routine screening but rather at screening asymptomatic individuals or those with nonspecific signs for cancers for which we have few or no screening measures and which are on the rise, such as deep tumors and cancer diagnosed at a late stage, namely pancreas, bile duct, ovarian, esophageal, lung, stomach, etc.
The results from the studies published are promising, but others are underway to confirm the benefit of these MCEDs. The challenge is to identify cancer at an early stage, at a stage where it will be easier to cure the patient and control its growth using treatments that are less onerous for the patient and that have fewer aftereffects but not at the expense of a massive increase in overdiagnosis, as seen with prostate-specific antigen levels in prostate cancer a few years ago!
Q: What would be the focus of these MCED tests?
Dr. Delaloge: We must be alert to the risk for the market development of MCED tests. For now, they are mostly, especially the Galleri test, developed in the general population to screen for types of cancer that could not be detected in any other way but also because it’s the most financially beneficial situation. The designers want to position themselves in the general population, regardless of whether this means they’ll have to test hundreds of people to find one for whom the test is beneficial. What’s more, developing tests in isolation, without considering their place in ad hoc treatment pathways, is not realistic. It’s likely that some of these tests will be marketed within the next 10 years, but the health care systems destined to receive them are not remotely ready to do so.
Q: An even more recent publication, from late July 2023, is even more exciting in relation to early detection of lung cancer using circulating DNA sequencing. What are your thoughts on it?
Dr. Delaloge: Initially overtaken by other technologies in favor of MCED approaches, DNA sequencing as a technique to detect somatic mutations seems to have reentered the competition with this new-generation research. The authors published some very interesting results, especially for stage I lung cancer with a very high sensitivity of 75%. [Editor’s note: A machine-learning model using genome-wide mutational profiles combined with other features and followed by CT imaging detected more than 90% of patients with lung cancer, including those with stage I and II disease.]
This research illustrates the difficulty of providing high performance while covering a broad range of cancers. Here, the good results mainly concern lung cancer. Researchers and health care authorities must be alert to ensuring that MCED tests prove themselves in terms of sensitivity and specificity in responding to a medical need and in their impact on specific mortality. This craze for MCED tests must not hinder the development of “single-cancer” technologies that may be much better for detecting specific cancers. This recent publication is interesting in this respect, because this sequencing test seems to be particularly good at detecting lung cancer.
Q: Another approach used in MCED tests is based on analyzing the size of DNA fragments in the blood. Can you explain how this works?
Dr. Delaloge: When cancer is not present, the size of DNA fragments in cells is much more homogeneous. Here also, the benefit of MCED based on this technique rests on the very early detection of cancers that are less common than those for which we already have good screening methods available.
Other approaches, still at the experimental stage, detect certain proteins, certain inflammatory molecules, RNA, etc. But for many researchers, the future will involve pairing tests on the basis of circulating DNA in the blood with the detection of specific molecules indicating the presence of cancer to obtain early screening tests that are even more effective or that possibly even allow us to identify an appropriate treatment at an early stage.
The development of a simple test based on a blood draw that allows us to screen early for all cancers and that would replace all current screening measures is, therefore, not imminent, although it could potentially be on the horizon in years to come. Alongside this, an important issue is the benefit of cancer screening in the general population vs. in a targeted population with a specific risk. The latter option is in development but requires an individualized screening pathway based on blood testing and current screening methods: imaging, etc. It also depends on an individual’s cancer risk profile such as age, personal and family medical history, genetic predisposition, and so on.
According to recent modeling, these multicancer tests could theoretically prevent a minimum of 2,000 deaths from cancer per 100,000 people between ages 50 and 79 years screened per year (17% fewer deaths from cancer per year).
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
From scrubs to screens: Growing your patient base with social media
With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.
But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media.
Use social media for the right reasons
While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.
“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”
If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.
“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
Post clear, accurate information
If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.
“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
Many patients get their information on social media
While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.
Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.
“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
Break down barriers – and make connections
Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.
“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”
But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.
“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person
As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.
“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”
Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.
“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”
If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.
But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media.
Use social media for the right reasons
While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.
“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”
If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.
“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
Post clear, accurate information
If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.
“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
Many patients get their information on social media
While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.
Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.
“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
Break down barriers – and make connections
Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.
“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”
But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.
“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person
As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.
“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”
Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.
“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”
If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.
But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media.
Use social media for the right reasons
While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.
“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”
If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.
“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
Post clear, accurate information
If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.
“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
Many patients get their information on social media
While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.
Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.
“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
Break down barriers – and make connections
Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.
“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”
But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.
“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person
As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.
“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”
Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.
“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”
If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
USPSTF should reconsider recommendation to lower mammogram age: Experts
The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.
Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”
But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.
In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.
Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.
Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.
That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”
In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.
Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.
The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.
Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.
The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?
Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.
Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.
“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.
Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.
“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”
Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.
In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
Reconsider the change?
Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.
“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.
That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”
The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”
The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.
The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.
Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”
But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.
In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.
Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.
Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.
That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”
In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.
Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.
The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.
Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.
The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?
Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.
Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.
“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.
Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.
“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”
Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.
In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
Reconsider the change?
Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.
“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.
That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”
The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”
The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.
The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The updated draft recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that would lower the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms by a decade for all average-risk women is not justified, experts argue in a “dissenting view” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The proposed change would affect more than 20 million U.S. women, and it’s “hard to see any potential benefits associated with lowering the starting age,” coauthor Steven Woloshin, MD, with Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an NEJM podcast.
Back in May, when USPSTF released the draft recommendation, task force member John Wong, MD, with Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview, “It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women.”
But, according to Dr. Woloshin, there is no recent evidence that mortality from breast cancer is increasing in young women.
In fact, the United States has seen a steady decrease in breast cancer mortality, especially among younger women. Breast cancer mortality among women under 50 “has been cut in half over the past 30 years,” Dr. Woloshin and coauthors explained.
Another wrinkle: The task force did not base its recent recommendation on randomized trial data. In fact, there have been no new randomized trials of screening mammography for women in their 40s since 2016. Instead, the task force relied on statistical models to “estimate what might happen if the starting age were lowered,” Dr. Woloshin and colleagues said.
Relying on a statistical model, however, “is problematic because it has some very optimistic assumptions about the benefit of mammography,” Dr. Woloshin said in the podcast. For instance, the models assume that screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 25%.
That 25% reduction is “far greater than what’s reported in the meta-analyses of the available randomized trials,” Dr. Woloshin explained. The meta-analyses report about a 16% reduction for all the trials combined and an estimated 13% for trials at low risk of bias. But “even these meta-analyses are likely to overstate the effect of screening since the trials were done before the major advances in treatment.”
In their own calculations, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm.
Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram.
The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1,000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1,000 women screened for 10 years,” Dr. Woloshin said.
Put another way, with mammography screening, “the chance of not dying from breast cancer over the next 10 years increases from 99.7% to 99.8%,” Dr. Woloshin said.
The benefit is arguably small, while the harms appear quite significant, Dr. Woloshin said. About 36% of women who begin screening at age 40 would have at least one false alarm over 10 years, and almost 7% would have a false alarm requiring a biopsy in that time frame.
Ease or exacerbate racial disparity?
Another argument that the USPSTF highlighted for lowering the screening age: Research indicates that Black women get breast cancer at younger ages and are more likely to die of the disease, compared with White women.
Dr. Woloshin and coauthors, however, also took issue with the view that lowering the screening age could reduce disparities between Black and White women.
“There’s no question that there are substantial differences between Black and White women in terms of breast cancer mortality, but there’s actually very little disparity in breast cancer screening – about 60% of Black and White women in their 40s are screened regularly in the United States,” Dr. Woloshin explained in the podcast.
Therefore, it’s “really hard to imagine” how recommending the same intervention to both groups could possibly reduce the disparity, he said.
“The disparity is not a reflection of screening. It reflects differences in cancer biology,” he added. “Black women are at higher risk for more aggressive, fast-growing cancers that are less likely to be caught by screening and unfortunately are less likely to benefit from treatment.”
Earlier screening would also not address the problems facing poor women, who tend to be disproportionately Black, such as lower quality of available medical services, follow-up delays after abnormal scans, treatment delays, and less use of adjuvant therapy, Dr. Woloshin cautioned.
In Dr. Woloshin’s view, lowering the screening age, which broadens the eligible population, may actually “exacerbate problems contributing to disparity by diverting resources toward expanded screening rather than doing what we know works by ensuring that high-quality treatments are more readily accessible to poor women with breast cancer.”
Reconsider the change?
Because task force recommendations are so influential, Dr. Woloshin and colleagues worry that mammography screening for women in their 40s will probably become a performance measure.
“Our concern is that, rather than fostering informed decisions, clinicians and practices are going to be judged and rewarded and punished based on compliance with this quality metric,” Dr. Woloshin said.
That’s a problem, he noted, “because women should be able to make the decision for themselves rather than having this be a public health imperative, which is imposed by physicians and practices who are incentivized to meet a quality metric.”
The hope, said Dr. Woloshin, is that this prospective piece will help influence the task force to “reconsider the recommendation, because we think that the bottom line is that their models are insufficient to support a new imperative. The benefits are really limited, and there are really common and important harms for healthy women.”
The comment period for the draft recommendation is now closed, and a final decision from the task force is forthcoming.
The research had no funding. Dr. Woloshin has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Spironolactone safe, effective option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa
CARLSBAD, CALIF. –
Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”
For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.
The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).
The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.
“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.
Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”
“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”
Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CARLSBAD, CALIF. –
Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”
For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.
The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).
The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.
“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.
Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”
“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”
Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CARLSBAD, CALIF. –
Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.
In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”
For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.
The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).
The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.
“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.
Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”
“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”
Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
AT CALDERM 2023
CBT effectively treats sexual concerns in menopausal women
PHILADELPHIA – . Four CBT sessions specifically focused on sexual concerns resulted in decreased sexual distress and concern, reduced depressive and menopausal symptoms, and increased sexual desire and functioning, as well as improved body image and relationship satisfaction.
An estimated 68%-87% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women report sexual concerns, Sheryl Green, PhD, CPsych, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University and a psychologist at St. Joseph’s Healthcare’s Women’s Health Concerns Clinic, both in Hamilton, Ont., told attendees at the meeting.
“Sexual concerns over the menopausal transition are not just physical, but they’re also psychological and emotional,” Dr. Green said. “Three common challenges include decreased sexual desire, a reduction in physical arousal and ability to achieve an orgasm, and sexual pain and discomfort during intercourse.”
The reasons for these concerns are multifactorial, she said. Decreased sexual desire can stem from stress, medical problems, their relationship with their partner, or other causes. A woman’s difficulty with reduced physical arousal or ability to have an orgasm can result from changes in hormone levels and vaginal changes, such as vaginal atrophy, which can also contribute to the sexual pain or discomfort reported by 17%-45% of postmenopausal women.
Two pharmacologic treatments exist for sexual concerns: oral flibanserin (Addyi) and injectable bremelanotide (Vyleesi). But many women may be unable or unwilling to take medication for their concerns. Previous research from Lori Brotto has found cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions to effectively improve sexual functioning in women treated for gynecologic cancer and in women without a history of cancer.
“Sexual function needs to be understood from a bio-psychosocial model, looking at the biologic factors, the psychological factors, the sociocultural factors, and the interpersonal factors,” Sheryl Kingsberg, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and a psychologist at University Hospitals in Cleveland, said in an interview.
“They can all overlap, and the clinician can ask a few pointed questions that help identify what the source of the problem is,” said Dr. Kingsberg, who was not involved in this study. She noted that the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health has an algorithm that can help in determining the source of the problems.
“Sometimes it’s going to be a biologic condition for which pharmacologic options are nice, but even if it is primarily pharmacologic, psychotherapy is always useful,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Once the problem is there, even if it’s biologically based, then you have all the things in terms of the cognitive distortion, anxiety,” and other issues that a cognitive behavioral approach can help address. “And access is now much wider because of telehealth,” she added.
‘Psychology of menopause’
The study led by Dr. Green focused on peri- and postmenopausal women, with an average age of 50, who were experiencing primary sexual concerns based on a score of at least 26 on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Among the 20 women recruited for the study, 6 had already been prescribed hormone therapy for sexual concerns.
All reported decreased sexual desire, 17 reported decreased sexual arousal, 14 had body image dissatisfaction related to sexual concerns, and 6 reported urogenital problems. Nine of the women were in full remission from major depressive disorder, one had post-traumatic stress syndrome, and one had subclinical generalized anxiety disorder.
After spending 4 weeks on a wait list as self-control group for the study, the 15 women who completed the trial underwent four individual CBT sessions focusing on sexual concerns. The first session focused on psychoeducation and thought monitoring, and the second focused on cognitive distortions, cognitive strategies, and unhelpful beliefs or expectations related to sexual concerns. The third session looked at the role of problematic behaviors and behavioral experiments, and the fourth focused on continuation of strategies, long-term goals, and maintaining gains.
The participants completed eight measures at baseline, after the 4 weeks on the wait list, and after the four CBT sessions to assess the following:
- Sexual satisfaction, distress, and desire, using the FSFI, the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R), and the Female Sexual Desire Questionnaire (FSDQ).
- Menopause symptoms, using the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS).
- Body image, using the Dresden Body Image Questionnaire (DBIQ).
- Relationship satisfaction, using the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI).
- Depression, using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II).
- Anxiety, using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).
The women did not experience any significant changes while on the wait list except a slight decrease on the FSDQ concern subscale. Following the CBT sessions, however, the women experienced a significant decrease in sexual distress and concern as well as an increase in sexual dyadic desire and sexual functioning (P = .003 for FSFI, P = .002 for FSDS-R, and P = .003 for FSDQ).
Participants also experienced a decrease in depression (P < .0001) and menopausal symptoms (P = .001) and an increase in body-image satisfaction (P = .018) and relationship satisfaction (P = .0011) after the CBT sessions. The researchers assessed participants’ satisfaction with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire after the CBT sessions and reported some of the qualitative findings.
“The treatment program was able to assist me with recognizing that some of my sexual concerns were normal, emotional as well as physical and hormonal, and provided me the ability to delve more deeply into the psychology of menopause and how to work through symptoms and concerns in more manageable pieces,” one participant wrote. Another found helpful the “homework exercises of recognizing a thought/feeling/emotion surrounding how I feel about myself/body and working through. More positive thought pattern/restructuring a response the most helpful.”
The main complaint about the program was that it was too short, with women wanting more sessions to help continue their progress.
Not an ‘either-or’ approach
Dr. Kingsberg said ISSWSH has a variety of sexual medicine practitioners, including providers who can provide CBT for sexual concerns, and the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists has a referral directory.
“Keeping in mind the bio-psychosocial model, sometimes psychotherapy is going to be a really effective treatment for sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Sometimes the pharmacologic option is going to be a really effective treatment for some concerns, and sometimes the combination is going to have a really nice treatment effect. So it’s not a one-size-fits-all, and it doesn’t have to be an either-or.”
The sexual concerns of women still do not get adequately addressed in medical schools and residencies, Dr. Kingsberg said, which is distinctly different from how male sexual concerns are addressed in health care.
“Erectile dysfunction is kind of in the norm, and women are still a little hesitant to bring up their sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “They don’t know if it’s appropriate and they’re hoping that their clinician will ask.”
One way clinicians can do that is with a global question for all their patients: “Most of my patients have sexual questions or concerns; what concerns do you have?”
“They don’t have to go through a checklist of 10 things,” Dr. Kingsberg said. If the patient does not bring anything up, providers can then ask a single follow up question: “Do you have any concerns with desire, arousal, orgasm, or pain?” That question, Dr. Kingsberg said, covers the four main areas of concern.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Green reported no disclosures. Dr. Kingsberg has consulted for or served on the advisory board for Alloy, Astellas, Bayer, Dare Bioscience, Freya, Reunion Neuroscience, Materna Medical, Madorra, Palatin, Pfizer, ReJoy, Sprout, Strategic Science Technologies, and MsMedicine.
PHILADELPHIA – . Four CBT sessions specifically focused on sexual concerns resulted in decreased sexual distress and concern, reduced depressive and menopausal symptoms, and increased sexual desire and functioning, as well as improved body image and relationship satisfaction.
An estimated 68%-87% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women report sexual concerns, Sheryl Green, PhD, CPsych, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University and a psychologist at St. Joseph’s Healthcare’s Women’s Health Concerns Clinic, both in Hamilton, Ont., told attendees at the meeting.
“Sexual concerns over the menopausal transition are not just physical, but they’re also psychological and emotional,” Dr. Green said. “Three common challenges include decreased sexual desire, a reduction in physical arousal and ability to achieve an orgasm, and sexual pain and discomfort during intercourse.”
The reasons for these concerns are multifactorial, she said. Decreased sexual desire can stem from stress, medical problems, their relationship with their partner, or other causes. A woman’s difficulty with reduced physical arousal or ability to have an orgasm can result from changes in hormone levels and vaginal changes, such as vaginal atrophy, which can also contribute to the sexual pain or discomfort reported by 17%-45% of postmenopausal women.
Two pharmacologic treatments exist for sexual concerns: oral flibanserin (Addyi) and injectable bremelanotide (Vyleesi). But many women may be unable or unwilling to take medication for their concerns. Previous research from Lori Brotto has found cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions to effectively improve sexual functioning in women treated for gynecologic cancer and in women without a history of cancer.
“Sexual function needs to be understood from a bio-psychosocial model, looking at the biologic factors, the psychological factors, the sociocultural factors, and the interpersonal factors,” Sheryl Kingsberg, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and a psychologist at University Hospitals in Cleveland, said in an interview.
“They can all overlap, and the clinician can ask a few pointed questions that help identify what the source of the problem is,” said Dr. Kingsberg, who was not involved in this study. She noted that the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health has an algorithm that can help in determining the source of the problems.
“Sometimes it’s going to be a biologic condition for which pharmacologic options are nice, but even if it is primarily pharmacologic, psychotherapy is always useful,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Once the problem is there, even if it’s biologically based, then you have all the things in terms of the cognitive distortion, anxiety,” and other issues that a cognitive behavioral approach can help address. “And access is now much wider because of telehealth,” she added.
‘Psychology of menopause’
The study led by Dr. Green focused on peri- and postmenopausal women, with an average age of 50, who were experiencing primary sexual concerns based on a score of at least 26 on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Among the 20 women recruited for the study, 6 had already been prescribed hormone therapy for sexual concerns.
All reported decreased sexual desire, 17 reported decreased sexual arousal, 14 had body image dissatisfaction related to sexual concerns, and 6 reported urogenital problems. Nine of the women were in full remission from major depressive disorder, one had post-traumatic stress syndrome, and one had subclinical generalized anxiety disorder.
After spending 4 weeks on a wait list as self-control group for the study, the 15 women who completed the trial underwent four individual CBT sessions focusing on sexual concerns. The first session focused on psychoeducation and thought monitoring, and the second focused on cognitive distortions, cognitive strategies, and unhelpful beliefs or expectations related to sexual concerns. The third session looked at the role of problematic behaviors and behavioral experiments, and the fourth focused on continuation of strategies, long-term goals, and maintaining gains.
The participants completed eight measures at baseline, after the 4 weeks on the wait list, and after the four CBT sessions to assess the following:
- Sexual satisfaction, distress, and desire, using the FSFI, the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R), and the Female Sexual Desire Questionnaire (FSDQ).
- Menopause symptoms, using the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS).
- Body image, using the Dresden Body Image Questionnaire (DBIQ).
- Relationship satisfaction, using the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI).
- Depression, using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II).
- Anxiety, using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).
The women did not experience any significant changes while on the wait list except a slight decrease on the FSDQ concern subscale. Following the CBT sessions, however, the women experienced a significant decrease in sexual distress and concern as well as an increase in sexual dyadic desire and sexual functioning (P = .003 for FSFI, P = .002 for FSDS-R, and P = .003 for FSDQ).
Participants also experienced a decrease in depression (P < .0001) and menopausal symptoms (P = .001) and an increase in body-image satisfaction (P = .018) and relationship satisfaction (P = .0011) after the CBT sessions. The researchers assessed participants’ satisfaction with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire after the CBT sessions and reported some of the qualitative findings.
“The treatment program was able to assist me with recognizing that some of my sexual concerns were normal, emotional as well as physical and hormonal, and provided me the ability to delve more deeply into the psychology of menopause and how to work through symptoms and concerns in more manageable pieces,” one participant wrote. Another found helpful the “homework exercises of recognizing a thought/feeling/emotion surrounding how I feel about myself/body and working through. More positive thought pattern/restructuring a response the most helpful.”
The main complaint about the program was that it was too short, with women wanting more sessions to help continue their progress.
Not an ‘either-or’ approach
Dr. Kingsberg said ISSWSH has a variety of sexual medicine practitioners, including providers who can provide CBT for sexual concerns, and the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists has a referral directory.
“Keeping in mind the bio-psychosocial model, sometimes psychotherapy is going to be a really effective treatment for sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Sometimes the pharmacologic option is going to be a really effective treatment for some concerns, and sometimes the combination is going to have a really nice treatment effect. So it’s not a one-size-fits-all, and it doesn’t have to be an either-or.”
The sexual concerns of women still do not get adequately addressed in medical schools and residencies, Dr. Kingsberg said, which is distinctly different from how male sexual concerns are addressed in health care.
“Erectile dysfunction is kind of in the norm, and women are still a little hesitant to bring up their sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “They don’t know if it’s appropriate and they’re hoping that their clinician will ask.”
One way clinicians can do that is with a global question for all their patients: “Most of my patients have sexual questions or concerns; what concerns do you have?”
“They don’t have to go through a checklist of 10 things,” Dr. Kingsberg said. If the patient does not bring anything up, providers can then ask a single follow up question: “Do you have any concerns with desire, arousal, orgasm, or pain?” That question, Dr. Kingsberg said, covers the four main areas of concern.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Green reported no disclosures. Dr. Kingsberg has consulted for or served on the advisory board for Alloy, Astellas, Bayer, Dare Bioscience, Freya, Reunion Neuroscience, Materna Medical, Madorra, Palatin, Pfizer, ReJoy, Sprout, Strategic Science Technologies, and MsMedicine.
PHILADELPHIA – . Four CBT sessions specifically focused on sexual concerns resulted in decreased sexual distress and concern, reduced depressive and menopausal symptoms, and increased sexual desire and functioning, as well as improved body image and relationship satisfaction.
An estimated 68%-87% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women report sexual concerns, Sheryl Green, PhD, CPsych, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University and a psychologist at St. Joseph’s Healthcare’s Women’s Health Concerns Clinic, both in Hamilton, Ont., told attendees at the meeting.
“Sexual concerns over the menopausal transition are not just physical, but they’re also psychological and emotional,” Dr. Green said. “Three common challenges include decreased sexual desire, a reduction in physical arousal and ability to achieve an orgasm, and sexual pain and discomfort during intercourse.”
The reasons for these concerns are multifactorial, she said. Decreased sexual desire can stem from stress, medical problems, their relationship with their partner, or other causes. A woman’s difficulty with reduced physical arousal or ability to have an orgasm can result from changes in hormone levels and vaginal changes, such as vaginal atrophy, which can also contribute to the sexual pain or discomfort reported by 17%-45% of postmenopausal women.
Two pharmacologic treatments exist for sexual concerns: oral flibanserin (Addyi) and injectable bremelanotide (Vyleesi). But many women may be unable or unwilling to take medication for their concerns. Previous research from Lori Brotto has found cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions to effectively improve sexual functioning in women treated for gynecologic cancer and in women without a history of cancer.
“Sexual function needs to be understood from a bio-psychosocial model, looking at the biologic factors, the psychological factors, the sociocultural factors, and the interpersonal factors,” Sheryl Kingsberg, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and a psychologist at University Hospitals in Cleveland, said in an interview.
“They can all overlap, and the clinician can ask a few pointed questions that help identify what the source of the problem is,” said Dr. Kingsberg, who was not involved in this study. She noted that the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health has an algorithm that can help in determining the source of the problems.
“Sometimes it’s going to be a biologic condition for which pharmacologic options are nice, but even if it is primarily pharmacologic, psychotherapy is always useful,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Once the problem is there, even if it’s biologically based, then you have all the things in terms of the cognitive distortion, anxiety,” and other issues that a cognitive behavioral approach can help address. “And access is now much wider because of telehealth,” she added.
‘Psychology of menopause’
The study led by Dr. Green focused on peri- and postmenopausal women, with an average age of 50, who were experiencing primary sexual concerns based on a score of at least 26 on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Among the 20 women recruited for the study, 6 had already been prescribed hormone therapy for sexual concerns.
All reported decreased sexual desire, 17 reported decreased sexual arousal, 14 had body image dissatisfaction related to sexual concerns, and 6 reported urogenital problems. Nine of the women were in full remission from major depressive disorder, one had post-traumatic stress syndrome, and one had subclinical generalized anxiety disorder.
After spending 4 weeks on a wait list as self-control group for the study, the 15 women who completed the trial underwent four individual CBT sessions focusing on sexual concerns. The first session focused on psychoeducation and thought monitoring, and the second focused on cognitive distortions, cognitive strategies, and unhelpful beliefs or expectations related to sexual concerns. The third session looked at the role of problematic behaviors and behavioral experiments, and the fourth focused on continuation of strategies, long-term goals, and maintaining gains.
The participants completed eight measures at baseline, after the 4 weeks on the wait list, and after the four CBT sessions to assess the following:
- Sexual satisfaction, distress, and desire, using the FSFI, the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R), and the Female Sexual Desire Questionnaire (FSDQ).
- Menopause symptoms, using the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS).
- Body image, using the Dresden Body Image Questionnaire (DBIQ).
- Relationship satisfaction, using the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI).
- Depression, using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II).
- Anxiety, using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).
The women did not experience any significant changes while on the wait list except a slight decrease on the FSDQ concern subscale. Following the CBT sessions, however, the women experienced a significant decrease in sexual distress and concern as well as an increase in sexual dyadic desire and sexual functioning (P = .003 for FSFI, P = .002 for FSDS-R, and P = .003 for FSDQ).
Participants also experienced a decrease in depression (P < .0001) and menopausal symptoms (P = .001) and an increase in body-image satisfaction (P = .018) and relationship satisfaction (P = .0011) after the CBT sessions. The researchers assessed participants’ satisfaction with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire after the CBT sessions and reported some of the qualitative findings.
“The treatment program was able to assist me with recognizing that some of my sexual concerns were normal, emotional as well as physical and hormonal, and provided me the ability to delve more deeply into the psychology of menopause and how to work through symptoms and concerns in more manageable pieces,” one participant wrote. Another found helpful the “homework exercises of recognizing a thought/feeling/emotion surrounding how I feel about myself/body and working through. More positive thought pattern/restructuring a response the most helpful.”
The main complaint about the program was that it was too short, with women wanting more sessions to help continue their progress.
Not an ‘either-or’ approach
Dr. Kingsberg said ISSWSH has a variety of sexual medicine practitioners, including providers who can provide CBT for sexual concerns, and the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists has a referral directory.
“Keeping in mind the bio-psychosocial model, sometimes psychotherapy is going to be a really effective treatment for sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “Sometimes the pharmacologic option is going to be a really effective treatment for some concerns, and sometimes the combination is going to have a really nice treatment effect. So it’s not a one-size-fits-all, and it doesn’t have to be an either-or.”
The sexual concerns of women still do not get adequately addressed in medical schools and residencies, Dr. Kingsberg said, which is distinctly different from how male sexual concerns are addressed in health care.
“Erectile dysfunction is kind of in the norm, and women are still a little hesitant to bring up their sexual concerns,” Dr. Kingsberg said. “They don’t know if it’s appropriate and they’re hoping that their clinician will ask.”
One way clinicians can do that is with a global question for all their patients: “Most of my patients have sexual questions or concerns; what concerns do you have?”
“They don’t have to go through a checklist of 10 things,” Dr. Kingsberg said. If the patient does not bring anything up, providers can then ask a single follow up question: “Do you have any concerns with desire, arousal, orgasm, or pain?” That question, Dr. Kingsberg said, covers the four main areas of concern.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Green reported no disclosures. Dr. Kingsberg has consulted for or served on the advisory board for Alloy, Astellas, Bayer, Dare Bioscience, Freya, Reunion Neuroscience, Materna Medical, Madorra, Palatin, Pfizer, ReJoy, Sprout, Strategic Science Technologies, and MsMedicine.
AT NAMS 2023
Metformin treatment shows benefit in gestational diabetes
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
What’s right and wrong for doctors on social media
She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.
Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”
“There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”
Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”
Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”
According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
Navigating the many social media sites
Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”
Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”
Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”
For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”
Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
Social media gone wrong
Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.
Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”
At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.
Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”
Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:
- Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
- Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
- If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
- Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
- Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
- Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
- Always protect patient privacy when posting.
- Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.
Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”
“There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”
Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”
Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”
According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
Navigating the many social media sites
Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”
Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”
Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”
For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”
Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
Social media gone wrong
Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.
Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”
At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.
Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”
Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:
- Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
- Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
- If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
- Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
- Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
- Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
- Always protect patient privacy when posting.
- Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.
Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”
“There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”
Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”
Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”
According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
Navigating the many social media sites
Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”
Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”
Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”
For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”
Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
Social media gone wrong
Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.
Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”
At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.
Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”
Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:
- Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
- Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
- If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
- Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
- Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
- Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
- Always protect patient privacy when posting.
- Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyaluronic acid suppository improves menopause symptoms
TOPLINE:
Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
- The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
- The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
- Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
- No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”
SOURCE:
Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
- The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
- The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
- Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
- No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”
SOURCE:
Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
- The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
- The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
- Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
- No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”
SOURCE:
Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.