Ob.Gyn. News

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Pregnant women in a large North American sample reported nearly double the rate of cannabidiol (CBD) use compared with nonpregnant women, new data published in a research letter in Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates.

Healthcare providers should be aware of the high rate of CBD use in pregnancy, especially as legal use of cannabis is increasing faster than evidence on outcomes for exposed offspring, note the researchers, led by Devika Bhatia, MD, from the Department of Psychiatry, Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

In an accompanying editorial, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, deputy editor for obstetrics for Obstetrics & Gynecology, writes that the study “is critically important.” She points out that pregnant individuals may perceive that CBD is a safe drug to use in pregnancy, despite there being essentially no data examining whether or not this is the case.

Large Dataset From United States and Canada

Researchers used data from the International Cannabis Policy Study (2019-2021), a repeated cross-sectional survey of people aged 16-65 years in the United States and Canada. There were 66,457 women in the sample, including 1096 pregnant women.

Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the prenatal use of CBD-only products. Those products are advertised to contain only CBD, rather than tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). They point out CBD-only products are often legal in North America and often marketed as supplements.

The prevalence of CBD-only use in pregnant women in the study was 20.4% compared with 11.3% among nonpregnant women, P < .001. The top reason for use by pregnant women was anxiety (58.4%). Other top reasons included depression (40.3%), posttraumatic stress disorder (32.1%), pain (52.3%), headache (35.6%), and nausea or vomiting (31.9%).

“Nonpregnant women were significantly more likely to report using CBD for pain, sleep, general well-being, and ‘other’ physical or mental health reasons, or to not use CBD for mental health,” the authors write, adding that the reasons for CBD use highlight drivers that may be important to address in treating pregnant patients.
 

Provider Endorsement in Some Cases

Dr. Metz, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology with the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, says in some cases women may be getting endorsement of CBD use from their provider or at least implied support when CBD is prescribed. In the study, pregnant women had 2.33 times greater adjusted odds of having a CBD prescription than nonpregnant women (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.88).

She points to another cross-sectional study of more than 10,000 participants using PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) data that found that “from 2017 to 2019, 63% of pregnant women reported that they were not told to avoid cannabis use in pregnancy, and 8% noted that they were advised to use cannabis by their prenatal care practitioner.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against prescribing cannabis products for pregnant or lactating women.

Studies that have explored THC and its metabolites have shown “a consistent association between cannabis use and decreased fetal growth,” Dr. Metz noted. “There also remain persistent concerns about the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of maternal cannabis use on the fetus and, subsequently, the newborn.”

Limitations of the study include the self-reported responses and participants’ ability to accurately distinguish between CBD-only and THC-containing products.

Because self-reports of CBD use in pregnancy may be drastically underestimated and nonreliable, Dr. Metz writes, development of blood and urine screens to help detect CBD product use “will be helpful in moving the field forward.”

Study senior author David Hammond, PhD, has been a paid expert witness on behalf of public health authorities in response to legal challenges from the cannabis, tobacco, vaping, and food industries. Other authors did not report any potential conflicts. Dr. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer, and grants from Pfizer for her role as a site principal investigator for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for her role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study.

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with a greater risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in men, potentially via the disruption of a key enzyme in the developing brain.

BPA is a potent endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration for use in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging.

“Exposure to BPA has already been shown in some studies to be associated with subsequent autism in offspring,” lead researcher Anne-Louise Ponsonby, PhD, The Florey Institute, Heidelberg, Australia, said in a statement.

“Our work is important because it demonstrates one of the biological mechanisms potentially involved. BPA can disrupt hormone-controlled male fetal brain development in several ways, including silencing a key enzyme, aromatase, that controls neurohormones and is especially important in fetal male brain development. This appears to be part of the autism puzzle,” she said.

Brain aromatase, encoded by CYP19A1, converts neural androgens to neural estrogens and has been implicated in ASD. Postmortem analyses of men with ASD also show markedly reduced aromatase activity.

The findings were published online in Nature Communications.
 

New Biological Mechanism

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Barwon Infant Study in 1067 infants in Australia. At age 7-11 years, 43 children had a confirmed ASD diagnosis, and 249 infants with Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) data at age 2 years had an autism spectrum problem score above the median.

The researchers developed a CYP19A1 genetic score for aromatase activity based on five single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with lower estrogen levels. Among 595 children with prenatal BPA and CBCL, those with three or more variants were classified as “low aromatase activity” and the remaining were classified as “high.”

In regression analyses, boys with low aromatase activity and high prenatal BPA exposure (top quartile > 2.18 µg/L) were 3.5 times more likely to have autism symptoms at age 2 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% CI, 1.13-11.22).

The odds of a confirmed ASD diagnosis were six times higher at age 9 years only in men with low aromatase activity (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 1.02-38.26).

The researchers also found that higher BPA levels predicted higher methylation in cord blood across the CYP19A1 brain promoter PI.f region (P = .009).

To replicate the findings, data were used from the Columbia Centre for Children’s Health Study–Mothers and Newborns cohort in the United States. Once again, the BPA level was associated with hypermethylation of the aromatase brain promoter PI.f (P = .0089).

In both cohorts, there was evidence that the effect of increased BPA on brain-derived neurotrophic factor hypermethylation was mediated partly through higher aromatase gene methylation (P = .001). 

To validate the findings, the researchers examined human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell lines and found aromatase protein levels were more than halved in the presence of BPA 50 µg/L (P = .01).

Additionally, mouse studies showed that male mice exposed to BPA 50 µg/L mid-gestation and male aromatase knockout mice — but not female mice — had social behavior deficits, such as interacting with a strange mouse, as well as structural and functional brain changes.

“We found that BPA suppresses the aromatase enzyme and is associated with anatomical, neurologic, and behavioral changes in the male mice that may be consistent with autism spectrum disorder,” Wah Chin Boon, PhD, co–lead researcher and research fellow, also with The Florey Institute, said in a statement.

“This is the first time a biological pathway has been identified that might help explain the connection between autism and BPA,” she said.

“In this study, not only were the levels of BPA higher than most people would be exposed to, but in at least one of the experiments the mice were injected with BPA directly, whereas humans would be exposed via food and drink,” observed Oliver Jones, PhD, MSc, professor of chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. “If you ingest the food, it undergoes metabolism before it gets to the bloodstream, which reduces the effective dose.”

Dr. Jones said further studies with larger numbers of participants measuring BPA throughout pregnancy and other chemicals the mother and child were exposed to are needed to be sure of any such link. “Just because there is a possible mechanism in place does not automatically mean that it is activated,” he said.

Dr. Ponsonby pointed out that BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals are “almost impossible for individuals to avoid” and can enter the body through plastic food and drink packaging, home renovation fumes, and sources such as cosmetics.
 

Fatty Acid Helpful? 

Building on earlier observations that 10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid (10HDA) may have estrogenic modulating activities, the researchers conducted additional studies suggesting that 10HDA may be effective as a competitive ligand that could counteract the effects of BPA on estrogen signaling within cells.

Further, among 3-week-old mice pups prenatally exposed to BPA, daily injections of 10HDA for 3 weeks showed striking and significant improvements in social interaction. Stopping 10HDA resulted in a deficit in social interaction that was again ameliorated by subsequent 10HDA treatment.

“10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid shows early indications of potential in activating opposing biological pathways to improve autism-like characteristics when administered to animals that have been prenatally exposed to BPA,” Dr. Boon said. “It warrants further studies to see whether this potential treatment could be realized in humans.”

Reached for comment, Dr. Jones said “the human studies are not strong at all,” in large part because BPA levels were tested only once at 36 weeks in the BIS cohort.

“I would argue that if BPA is in the urine, it has been excreted and is no longer in the bloodstream, thus not able to affect the child,” he said. “I’d also argue that a single measurement at 36 weeks cannot give you any idea of the mother’s exposure to BPA over the rest of the pregnancy or what the child was exposed to after birth.”

The study was funded by the Minderoo Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Research Council, and numerous other sponsors. Dr. Boon is a coinventor on “Methods of treating neurodevelopmental diseases and disorders” and is a board member of Meizon Innovation Holdings. Dr. Ponsonby is a scientific adviser to Meizon Innovation Holdings. The remaining authors declared no competing interests.

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

Higher prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with a greater risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in men, potentially via the disruption of a key enzyme in the developing brain.

BPA is a potent endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration for use in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging.

“Exposure to BPA has already been shown in some studies to be associated with subsequent autism in offspring,” lead researcher Anne-Louise Ponsonby, PhD, The Florey Institute, Heidelberg, Australia, said in a statement.

“Our work is important because it demonstrates one of the biological mechanisms potentially involved. BPA can disrupt hormone-controlled male fetal brain development in several ways, including silencing a key enzyme, aromatase, that controls neurohormones and is especially important in fetal male brain development. This appears to be part of the autism puzzle,” she said.

Brain aromatase, encoded by CYP19A1, converts neural androgens to neural estrogens and has been implicated in ASD. Postmortem analyses of men with ASD also show markedly reduced aromatase activity.

The findings were published online in Nature Communications.
 

New Biological Mechanism

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Barwon Infant Study in 1067 infants in Australia. At age 7-11 years, 43 children had a confirmed ASD diagnosis, and 249 infants with Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) data at age 2 years had an autism spectrum problem score above the median.

The researchers developed a CYP19A1 genetic score for aromatase activity based on five single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with lower estrogen levels. Among 595 children with prenatal BPA and CBCL, those with three or more variants were classified as “low aromatase activity” and the remaining were classified as “high.”

In regression analyses, boys with low aromatase activity and high prenatal BPA exposure (top quartile > 2.18 µg/L) were 3.5 times more likely to have autism symptoms at age 2 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% CI, 1.13-11.22).

The odds of a confirmed ASD diagnosis were six times higher at age 9 years only in men with low aromatase activity (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 1.02-38.26).

The researchers also found that higher BPA levels predicted higher methylation in cord blood across the CYP19A1 brain promoter PI.f region (P = .009).

To replicate the findings, data were used from the Columbia Centre for Children’s Health Study–Mothers and Newborns cohort in the United States. Once again, the BPA level was associated with hypermethylation of the aromatase brain promoter PI.f (P = .0089).

In both cohorts, there was evidence that the effect of increased BPA on brain-derived neurotrophic factor hypermethylation was mediated partly through higher aromatase gene methylation (P = .001). 

To validate the findings, the researchers examined human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell lines and found aromatase protein levels were more than halved in the presence of BPA 50 µg/L (P = .01).

Additionally, mouse studies showed that male mice exposed to BPA 50 µg/L mid-gestation and male aromatase knockout mice — but not female mice — had social behavior deficits, such as interacting with a strange mouse, as well as structural and functional brain changes.

“We found that BPA suppresses the aromatase enzyme and is associated with anatomical, neurologic, and behavioral changes in the male mice that may be consistent with autism spectrum disorder,” Wah Chin Boon, PhD, co–lead researcher and research fellow, also with The Florey Institute, said in a statement.

“This is the first time a biological pathway has been identified that might help explain the connection between autism and BPA,” she said.

“In this study, not only were the levels of BPA higher than most people would be exposed to, but in at least one of the experiments the mice were injected with BPA directly, whereas humans would be exposed via food and drink,” observed Oliver Jones, PhD, MSc, professor of chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. “If you ingest the food, it undergoes metabolism before it gets to the bloodstream, which reduces the effective dose.”

Dr. Jones said further studies with larger numbers of participants measuring BPA throughout pregnancy and other chemicals the mother and child were exposed to are needed to be sure of any such link. “Just because there is a possible mechanism in place does not automatically mean that it is activated,” he said.

Dr. Ponsonby pointed out that BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals are “almost impossible for individuals to avoid” and can enter the body through plastic food and drink packaging, home renovation fumes, and sources such as cosmetics.
 

Fatty Acid Helpful? 

Building on earlier observations that 10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid (10HDA) may have estrogenic modulating activities, the researchers conducted additional studies suggesting that 10HDA may be effective as a competitive ligand that could counteract the effects of BPA on estrogen signaling within cells.

Further, among 3-week-old mice pups prenatally exposed to BPA, daily injections of 10HDA for 3 weeks showed striking and significant improvements in social interaction. Stopping 10HDA resulted in a deficit in social interaction that was again ameliorated by subsequent 10HDA treatment.

“10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid shows early indications of potential in activating opposing biological pathways to improve autism-like characteristics when administered to animals that have been prenatally exposed to BPA,” Dr. Boon said. “It warrants further studies to see whether this potential treatment could be realized in humans.”

Reached for comment, Dr. Jones said “the human studies are not strong at all,” in large part because BPA levels were tested only once at 36 weeks in the BIS cohort.

“I would argue that if BPA is in the urine, it has been excreted and is no longer in the bloodstream, thus not able to affect the child,” he said. “I’d also argue that a single measurement at 36 weeks cannot give you any idea of the mother’s exposure to BPA over the rest of the pregnancy or what the child was exposed to after birth.”

The study was funded by the Minderoo Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Research Council, and numerous other sponsors. Dr. Boon is a coinventor on “Methods of treating neurodevelopmental diseases and disorders” and is a board member of Meizon Innovation Holdings. Dr. Ponsonby is a scientific adviser to Meizon Innovation Holdings. The remaining authors declared no competing interests.

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

Higher prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with a greater risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in men, potentially via the disruption of a key enzyme in the developing brain.

BPA is a potent endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration for use in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging.

“Exposure to BPA has already been shown in some studies to be associated with subsequent autism in offspring,” lead researcher Anne-Louise Ponsonby, PhD, The Florey Institute, Heidelberg, Australia, said in a statement.

“Our work is important because it demonstrates one of the biological mechanisms potentially involved. BPA can disrupt hormone-controlled male fetal brain development in several ways, including silencing a key enzyme, aromatase, that controls neurohormones and is especially important in fetal male brain development. This appears to be part of the autism puzzle,” she said.

Brain aromatase, encoded by CYP19A1, converts neural androgens to neural estrogens and has been implicated in ASD. Postmortem analyses of men with ASD also show markedly reduced aromatase activity.

The findings were published online in Nature Communications.
 

New Biological Mechanism

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Barwon Infant Study in 1067 infants in Australia. At age 7-11 years, 43 children had a confirmed ASD diagnosis, and 249 infants with Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) data at age 2 years had an autism spectrum problem score above the median.

The researchers developed a CYP19A1 genetic score for aromatase activity based on five single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with lower estrogen levels. Among 595 children with prenatal BPA and CBCL, those with three or more variants were classified as “low aromatase activity” and the remaining were classified as “high.”

In regression analyses, boys with low aromatase activity and high prenatal BPA exposure (top quartile > 2.18 µg/L) were 3.5 times more likely to have autism symptoms at age 2 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% CI, 1.13-11.22).

The odds of a confirmed ASD diagnosis were six times higher at age 9 years only in men with low aromatase activity (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 1.02-38.26).

The researchers also found that higher BPA levels predicted higher methylation in cord blood across the CYP19A1 brain promoter PI.f region (P = .009).

To replicate the findings, data were used from the Columbia Centre for Children’s Health Study–Mothers and Newborns cohort in the United States. Once again, the BPA level was associated with hypermethylation of the aromatase brain promoter PI.f (P = .0089).

In both cohorts, there was evidence that the effect of increased BPA on brain-derived neurotrophic factor hypermethylation was mediated partly through higher aromatase gene methylation (P = .001). 

To validate the findings, the researchers examined human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell lines and found aromatase protein levels were more than halved in the presence of BPA 50 µg/L (P = .01).

Additionally, mouse studies showed that male mice exposed to BPA 50 µg/L mid-gestation and male aromatase knockout mice — but not female mice — had social behavior deficits, such as interacting with a strange mouse, as well as structural and functional brain changes.

“We found that BPA suppresses the aromatase enzyme and is associated with anatomical, neurologic, and behavioral changes in the male mice that may be consistent with autism spectrum disorder,” Wah Chin Boon, PhD, co–lead researcher and research fellow, also with The Florey Institute, said in a statement.

“This is the first time a biological pathway has been identified that might help explain the connection between autism and BPA,” she said.

“In this study, not only were the levels of BPA higher than most people would be exposed to, but in at least one of the experiments the mice were injected with BPA directly, whereas humans would be exposed via food and drink,” observed Oliver Jones, PhD, MSc, professor of chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. “If you ingest the food, it undergoes metabolism before it gets to the bloodstream, which reduces the effective dose.”

Dr. Jones said further studies with larger numbers of participants measuring BPA throughout pregnancy and other chemicals the mother and child were exposed to are needed to be sure of any such link. “Just because there is a possible mechanism in place does not automatically mean that it is activated,” he said.

Dr. Ponsonby pointed out that BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals are “almost impossible for individuals to avoid” and can enter the body through plastic food and drink packaging, home renovation fumes, and sources such as cosmetics.
 

Fatty Acid Helpful? 

Building on earlier observations that 10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid (10HDA) may have estrogenic modulating activities, the researchers conducted additional studies suggesting that 10HDA may be effective as a competitive ligand that could counteract the effects of BPA on estrogen signaling within cells.

Further, among 3-week-old mice pups prenatally exposed to BPA, daily injections of 10HDA for 3 weeks showed striking and significant improvements in social interaction. Stopping 10HDA resulted in a deficit in social interaction that was again ameliorated by subsequent 10HDA treatment.

“10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid shows early indications of potential in activating opposing biological pathways to improve autism-like characteristics when administered to animals that have been prenatally exposed to BPA,” Dr. Boon said. “It warrants further studies to see whether this potential treatment could be realized in humans.”

Reached for comment, Dr. Jones said “the human studies are not strong at all,” in large part because BPA levels were tested only once at 36 weeks in the BIS cohort.

“I would argue that if BPA is in the urine, it has been excreted and is no longer in the bloodstream, thus not able to affect the child,” he said. “I’d also argue that a single measurement at 36 weeks cannot give you any idea of the mother’s exposure to BPA over the rest of the pregnancy or what the child was exposed to after birth.”

The study was funded by the Minderoo Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Research Council, and numerous other sponsors. Dr. Boon is a coinventor on “Methods of treating neurodevelopmental diseases and disorders” and is a board member of Meizon Innovation Holdings. Dr. Ponsonby is a scientific adviser to Meizon Innovation Holdings. The remaining authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy is associated with lower risks for neonatal abstinence syndrome and neonatal intensive care unit admission than buprenorphine alone. The study also found no significant differences in major congenital malformations between the two treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using healthcare utilization data of people who were insured by Medicaid between 2000 and 2018.
• A total of 8695 pregnant individuals were included, with 3369 exposed to buprenorphine/naloxone and 5326 exposed to buprenorphine alone during the first trimester.
• Outcome measures included major congenital malformations, low birth weight, neonatal abstinence syndrome, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity.
• The study excluded pregnancies with chromosomal anomalies, first-trimester exposure to known teratogens, or methadone use during baseline or the first trimester.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, buprenorphine/naloxone exposure during pregnancy was associated with a lower risk for neonatal abstinence syndrome (weighted risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84) than buprenorphine alone.
• The researchers found a modestly lower risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission (weighted RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) and small risk for gestational age (weighted RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group.
• No significant differences were observed between the two groups in major congenital malformations, low birth weight, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, or cesarean delivery.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the outcomes assessed, compared with buprenorphine alone, buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy appears to be a safe treatment option. This supports the view that both formulations are reasonable options for treatment of OUD in pregnancy, affirming flexibility in collaborative treatment decision-making,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Loreen Straub, MD, MS, of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some potential confounders, such as alcohol use and cigarette smoking, may not have been recorded in claims data. The findings for many of the neonatal and maternal outcomes suggest that confounding by unmeasured factors is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed. Individuals identified as exposed based on filled prescriptions might not have used the medication. The study used outcome algorithms with relatively high positive predictive values to minimize outcome misclassification. The cohort was restricted to live births to enable linkage to infants and to assess neonatal outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Roche, Moderna, Takeda, and Janssen Global, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy is associated with lower risks for neonatal abstinence syndrome and neonatal intensive care unit admission than buprenorphine alone. The study also found no significant differences in major congenital malformations between the two treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using healthcare utilization data of people who were insured by Medicaid between 2000 and 2018.
• A total of 8695 pregnant individuals were included, with 3369 exposed to buprenorphine/naloxone and 5326 exposed to buprenorphine alone during the first trimester.
• Outcome measures included major congenital malformations, low birth weight, neonatal abstinence syndrome, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity.
• The study excluded pregnancies with chromosomal anomalies, first-trimester exposure to known teratogens, or methadone use during baseline or the first trimester.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, buprenorphine/naloxone exposure during pregnancy was associated with a lower risk for neonatal abstinence syndrome (weighted risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84) than buprenorphine alone.
• The researchers found a modestly lower risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission (weighted RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) and small risk for gestational age (weighted RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group.
• No significant differences were observed between the two groups in major congenital malformations, low birth weight, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, or cesarean delivery.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the outcomes assessed, compared with buprenorphine alone, buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy appears to be a safe treatment option. This supports the view that both formulations are reasonable options for treatment of OUD in pregnancy, affirming flexibility in collaborative treatment decision-making,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Loreen Straub, MD, MS, of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some potential confounders, such as alcohol use and cigarette smoking, may not have been recorded in claims data. The findings for many of the neonatal and maternal outcomes suggest that confounding by unmeasured factors is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed. Individuals identified as exposed based on filled prescriptions might not have used the medication. The study used outcome algorithms with relatively high positive predictive values to minimize outcome misclassification. The cohort was restricted to live births to enable linkage to infants and to assess neonatal outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Roche, Moderna, Takeda, and Janssen Global, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy is associated with lower risks for neonatal abstinence syndrome and neonatal intensive care unit admission than buprenorphine alone. The study also found no significant differences in major congenital malformations between the two treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using healthcare utilization data of people who were insured by Medicaid between 2000 and 2018.
• A total of 8695 pregnant individuals were included, with 3369 exposed to buprenorphine/naloxone and 5326 exposed to buprenorphine alone during the first trimester.
• Outcome measures included major congenital malformations, low birth weight, neonatal abstinence syndrome, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity.
• The study excluded pregnancies with chromosomal anomalies, first-trimester exposure to known teratogens, or methadone use during baseline or the first trimester.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, buprenorphine/naloxone exposure during pregnancy was associated with a lower risk for neonatal abstinence syndrome (weighted risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84) than buprenorphine alone.
• The researchers found a modestly lower risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission (weighted RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) and small risk for gestational age (weighted RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group.
• No significant differences were observed between the two groups in major congenital malformations, low birth weight, preterm birth, respiratory symptoms, or cesarean delivery.

IN PRACTICE:

“For the outcomes assessed, compared with buprenorphine alone, buprenorphine combined with naloxone during pregnancy appears to be a safe treatment option. This supports the view that both formulations are reasonable options for treatment of OUD in pregnancy, affirming flexibility in collaborative treatment decision-making,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Loreen Straub, MD, MS, of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some potential confounders, such as alcohol use and cigarette smoking, may not have been recorded in claims data. The findings for many of the neonatal and maternal outcomes suggest that confounding by unmeasured factors is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed. Individuals identified as exposed based on filled prescriptions might not have used the medication. The study used outcome algorithms with relatively high positive predictive values to minimize outcome misclassification. The cohort was restricted to live births to enable linkage to infants and to assess neonatal outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Roche, Moderna, Takeda, and Janssen Global, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.