Diversity in Medicine

Jamestown, Colo., is a small mountain town several miles up through Lefthand Canyon out of Boulder, in the Rocky Mountains. The canyon roads are steep, winding, and narrow, and peopled by brightly clad cyclists struggling up the hill and flying down faster than the cars. The road through Jamestown is dusty in the summer with brightly colored oil barrels strategically placed in the middle of the single road through town. Slashed across their sides: “SLOW DOWN! Watch out for our feral children!”

Wild child or hothouse child? What is the best choice? Women bear the brunt of this deciding, whether they are working outside of the home, or stay-at-home caregivers, or both. Women know they will be blamed if they get it wrong.

Society has exacted a tall order on women who choose to have children. Patriarchal norms ask (White) women who choose both to work and have children, if they are really a “stay-at-home” mother who must work, or a “working” mother who prefers work over their children. The underlying attitude can be read as: “Are you someone who prioritizes paid work over caregiving, or are you someone who prioritizes caregiving over work?” You may be seen as a bad mother if you prioritize work over the welfare of your child. If you prioritize your child over your work, then you are not a reliable, dedicated worker. The working mother can’t win.

Woman’s central question is what kind of mother should I be? Mothers struggle with this question all their lives; when their child has difficulties, society’s question is what did you do wrong with your child? Mothers internalize the standard of the “good mother” and are aware of each minor transgression that depicts them as the “bad mother.” It is hard to escape the impossible perfectionistic standard of the good mother. But perhaps it has come time to push back on the moral imbalance.
 

Internalized sexism

As women move out of the home into the workplace, the societal pressures to maintain the status quo bear down on women, trying to keep them in their place.

Social pressures employ subtle “technologies of the self,” so that women – as any oppressed group – learn to internalize these technologies, and monitor themselves.¹ This is now widely accepted as internalized sexism, whereby women feel that they are not good enough, do not have the right qualifications, and are “less” than the dominant group (men). This phenomenon is also recognized when racial and ethnic biases are assimilated unconsciously, as internalized racism. Should we also have internalized “momism”?

Women are caught between trying to claim their individualism as well as feeling the responsibility to be the self-denying mother. Everyone has an opinion about the place of women. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly considered “women’s lib” to be un-American, citing women in the military and the establishment of federal day care centers as actions of a communist state. A similar ideology helped form the antifeminist organization Concerned Women for America, which self-reports that it is the largest American public policy women’s organization. Formed in opposition to the National Organization for Women, CWA is focused on maintaining the traditional family, as understood by (White) evangelical Christians.

An example similar to CWA is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was established to help evangelical Christian churches defend themselves against an accommodation of secular feminism and also against evangelical feminism (which pushes for more equality in the church). It promotes complementarianism – the idea that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement each other.

At the other extreme, the most radical of feminists believe in the need to create a women-only society where women would be free from the patriarchy. Less angry but decidedly weirder are the feminists called “FEMEN” who once staged a protest at the Vatican where topless women feigned intercourse with crucifixes, chanting slogans against the pope and religion.

Most women tread a path between extremes, a path which is difficult and lonely. Without a firm ideology, this path is strewn with doubts and pitfalls. Some career-oriented women who have delayed motherhood, knowing that they will soon be biologically past their peak and possibly also without a partner, wonder if they should become single mothers using sperm donation. For many women, the workplace does not offer much help with maternity leave or childcare. Even when maternity leave is available, there is a still a lack of understanding about what is needed.

“Think of it as caregiver bias. If you just extend maternity leave, what is implied is that you’re still expecting me to be the primary source of care for my child, when in fact my partner wants to share the load and will need support to do so as well,” said Pamela Culpepper, an expert in corporate diversity and inclusion.²

Intensive mothering

When the glamor of the workplace wears off and/or when the misogyny and the harassment become too much, women who have the financial stability may decide to return to the role of the stay-at-home mother. Perhaps, in the home, she can feel fulfilled. Yet, young American urban and suburban mothers now parent under a new name – “intensive mothering.”

Conducting in-depth interviews of 38 women of diverse backgrounds in the United States, Sharon Hays found women describing their 2- to 4-year-old children as innocent and priceless, and believing that they – the mothers – should be primarily responsible for rearing their children, using “child-rearing methods that are child centered, expert guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially expensive.”³ Ms. Hays clarified four beliefs that were common to all the women in the study: mothers are more suitable caregivers than fathers; mothering should be child centered; parenting consists of a set of skills that need to be learned; and parenting is labor-intensive but an emotionally fulfilling activity.

Hays wondered if this type of mothering developed as the last defense against “the impoverishment of social ties, communal obligations and unremunerated commitments.”³ She suggested that women succumbing to social pressures to return to the home is yet another example of how society is set up to benefit men, capitalism, political leaders, and those who try to maintain a “traditional” form of family life.³ Ms. Hays concluded that the practice of intensive mothering is a class-based practice of privileged white women, entangled with capitalism in that the buying of “essential” baby products is equated with good mothering. She found this ideology to be oppressive of all women, regardless of their social class, ethnic background, household composition, and financial situation. Ms. Hays noted that many women experience guilt for not matching up to these ideals.

In “Dead End Feminism,” Elisabeth Badinter asks if the upheaval in the role of women has caused so much uncertainty that it is easier for women to regress to a time when they were in the home and knew themselves as mothers. They ask if this has been reinforced by the movement to embrace all things natural, eschewing the falseness of chemicals and other things that threaten Mother Earth.⁴

Whatever type of parenting a woman chooses, you can be sure that she, not the father, will be held accountable. There is no escaping the power of the mother: she will continue to symbolize all that is good and bad as the embodiment of the Mother Archetype. All of this is the background against which you will see the new mother in the family. She will not articulate her dilemma, that is your role as the family psychiatrist.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Martin LH et al (eds.). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.

2. How Pamela Culpepper Is Changing The Narrative Of Women In The Workplace. Huffpost. 2020 Mar 6. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pamela-culpepper-diversity-inclusion-empowerment_n_5e56b6ffc5b62e9dc7dbc307.

3. Hays S. Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996.

4. Badinter E. (translated by Borossa J). Dead End Feminism. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2006.

Jamestown, Colo., is a small mountain town several miles up through Lefthand Canyon out of Boulder, in the Rocky Mountains. The canyon roads are steep, winding, and narrow, and peopled by brightly clad cyclists struggling up the hill and flying down faster than the cars. The road through Jamestown is dusty in the summer with brightly colored oil barrels strategically placed in the middle of the single road through town. Slashed across their sides: “SLOW DOWN! Watch out for our feral children!”

Wild child or hothouse child? What is the best choice? Women bear the brunt of this deciding, whether they are working outside of the home, or stay-at-home caregivers, or both. Women know they will be blamed if they get it wrong.

Society has exacted a tall order on women who choose to have children. Patriarchal norms ask (White) women who choose both to work and have children, if they are really a “stay-at-home” mother who must work, or a “working” mother who prefers work over their children. The underlying attitude can be read as: “Are you someone who prioritizes paid work over caregiving, or are you someone who prioritizes caregiving over work?” You may be seen as a bad mother if you prioritize work over the welfare of your child. If you prioritize your child over your work, then you are not a reliable, dedicated worker. The working mother can’t win.

Woman’s central question is what kind of mother should I be? Mothers struggle with this question all their lives; when their child has difficulties, society’s question is what did you do wrong with your child? Mothers internalize the standard of the “good mother” and are aware of each minor transgression that depicts them as the “bad mother.” It is hard to escape the impossible perfectionistic standard of the good mother. But perhaps it has come time to push back on the moral imbalance.
 

Internalized sexism

As women move out of the home into the workplace, the societal pressures to maintain the status quo bear down on women, trying to keep them in their place.

Social pressures employ subtle “technologies of the self,” so that women – as any oppressed group – learn to internalize these technologies, and monitor themselves.¹ This is now widely accepted as internalized sexism, whereby women feel that they are not good enough, do not have the right qualifications, and are “less” than the dominant group (men). This phenomenon is also recognized when racial and ethnic biases are assimilated unconsciously, as internalized racism. Should we also have internalized “momism”?

Women are caught between trying to claim their individualism as well as feeling the responsibility to be the self-denying mother. Everyone has an opinion about the place of women. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly considered “women’s lib” to be un-American, citing women in the military and the establishment of federal day care centers as actions of a communist state. A similar ideology helped form the antifeminist organization Concerned Women for America, which self-reports that it is the largest American public policy women’s organization. Formed in opposition to the National Organization for Women, CWA is focused on maintaining the traditional family, as understood by (White) evangelical Christians.

An example similar to CWA is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was established to help evangelical Christian churches defend themselves against an accommodation of secular feminism and also against evangelical feminism (which pushes for more equality in the church). It promotes complementarianism – the idea that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement each other.

At the other extreme, the most radical of feminists believe in the need to create a women-only society where women would be free from the patriarchy. Less angry but decidedly weirder are the feminists called “FEMEN” who once staged a protest at the Vatican where topless women feigned intercourse with crucifixes, chanting slogans against the pope and religion.

Most women tread a path between extremes, a path which is difficult and lonely. Without a firm ideology, this path is strewn with doubts and pitfalls. Some career-oriented women who have delayed motherhood, knowing that they will soon be biologically past their peak and possibly also without a partner, wonder if they should become single mothers using sperm donation. For many women, the workplace does not offer much help with maternity leave or childcare. Even when maternity leave is available, there is a still a lack of understanding about what is needed.

“Think of it as caregiver bias. If you just extend maternity leave, what is implied is that you’re still expecting me to be the primary source of care for my child, when in fact my partner wants to share the load and will need support to do so as well,” said Pamela Culpepper, an expert in corporate diversity and inclusion.²

Intensive mothering

When the glamor of the workplace wears off and/or when the misogyny and the harassment become too much, women who have the financial stability may decide to return to the role of the stay-at-home mother. Perhaps, in the home, she can feel fulfilled. Yet, young American urban and suburban mothers now parent under a new name – “intensive mothering.”

Conducting in-depth interviews of 38 women of diverse backgrounds in the United States, Sharon Hays found women describing their 2- to 4-year-old children as innocent and priceless, and believing that they – the mothers – should be primarily responsible for rearing their children, using “child-rearing methods that are child centered, expert guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially expensive.”³ Ms. Hays clarified four beliefs that were common to all the women in the study: mothers are more suitable caregivers than fathers; mothering should be child centered; parenting consists of a set of skills that need to be learned; and parenting is labor-intensive but an emotionally fulfilling activity.

Hays wondered if this type of mothering developed as the last defense against “the impoverishment of social ties, communal obligations and unremunerated commitments.”³ She suggested that women succumbing to social pressures to return to the home is yet another example of how society is set up to benefit men, capitalism, political leaders, and those who try to maintain a “traditional” form of family life.³ Ms. Hays concluded that the practice of intensive mothering is a class-based practice of privileged white women, entangled with capitalism in that the buying of “essential” baby products is equated with good mothering. She found this ideology to be oppressive of all women, regardless of their social class, ethnic background, household composition, and financial situation. Ms. Hays noted that many women experience guilt for not matching up to these ideals.

In “Dead End Feminism,” Elisabeth Badinter asks if the upheaval in the role of women has caused so much uncertainty that it is easier for women to regress to a time when they were in the home and knew themselves as mothers. They ask if this has been reinforced by the movement to embrace all things natural, eschewing the falseness of chemicals and other things that threaten Mother Earth.⁴

Whatever type of parenting a woman chooses, you can be sure that she, not the father, will be held accountable. There is no escaping the power of the mother: she will continue to symbolize all that is good and bad as the embodiment of the Mother Archetype. All of this is the background against which you will see the new mother in the family. She will not articulate her dilemma, that is your role as the family psychiatrist.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Martin LH et al (eds.). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.

2. How Pamela Culpepper Is Changing The Narrative Of Women In The Workplace. Huffpost. 2020 Mar 6. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pamela-culpepper-diversity-inclusion-empowerment_n_5e56b6ffc5b62e9dc7dbc307.

3. Hays S. Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996.

4. Badinter E. (translated by Borossa J). Dead End Feminism. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2006.

Jamestown, Colo., is a small mountain town several miles up through Lefthand Canyon out of Boulder, in the Rocky Mountains. The canyon roads are steep, winding, and narrow, and peopled by brightly clad cyclists struggling up the hill and flying down faster than the cars. The road through Jamestown is dusty in the summer with brightly colored oil barrels strategically placed in the middle of the single road through town. Slashed across their sides: “SLOW DOWN! Watch out for our feral children!”

Wild child or hothouse child? What is the best choice? Women bear the brunt of this deciding, whether they are working outside of the home, or stay-at-home caregivers, or both. Women know they will be blamed if they get it wrong.

Society has exacted a tall order on women who choose to have children. Patriarchal norms ask (White) women who choose both to work and have children, if they are really a “stay-at-home” mother who must work, or a “working” mother who prefers work over their children. The underlying attitude can be read as: “Are you someone who prioritizes paid work over caregiving, or are you someone who prioritizes caregiving over work?” You may be seen as a bad mother if you prioritize work over the welfare of your child. If you prioritize your child over your work, then you are not a reliable, dedicated worker. The working mother can’t win.

Woman’s central question is what kind of mother should I be? Mothers struggle with this question all their lives; when their child has difficulties, society’s question is what did you do wrong with your child? Mothers internalize the standard of the “good mother” and are aware of each minor transgression that depicts them as the “bad mother.” It is hard to escape the impossible perfectionistic standard of the good mother. But perhaps it has come time to push back on the moral imbalance.
 

Internalized sexism

As women move out of the home into the workplace, the societal pressures to maintain the status quo bear down on women, trying to keep them in their place.

Social pressures employ subtle “technologies of the self,” so that women – as any oppressed group – learn to internalize these technologies, and monitor themselves.¹ This is now widely accepted as internalized sexism, whereby women feel that they are not good enough, do not have the right qualifications, and are “less” than the dominant group (men). This phenomenon is also recognized when racial and ethnic biases are assimilated unconsciously, as internalized racism. Should we also have internalized “momism”?

Women are caught between trying to claim their individualism as well as feeling the responsibility to be the self-denying mother. Everyone has an opinion about the place of women. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly considered “women’s lib” to be un-American, citing women in the military and the establishment of federal day care centers as actions of a communist state. A similar ideology helped form the antifeminist organization Concerned Women for America, which self-reports that it is the largest American public policy women’s organization. Formed in opposition to the National Organization for Women, CWA is focused on maintaining the traditional family, as understood by (White) evangelical Christians.

An example similar to CWA is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was established to help evangelical Christian churches defend themselves against an accommodation of secular feminism and also against evangelical feminism (which pushes for more equality in the church). It promotes complementarianism – the idea that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement each other.

At the other extreme, the most radical of feminists believe in the need to create a women-only society where women would be free from the patriarchy. Less angry but decidedly weirder are the feminists called “FEMEN” who once staged a protest at the Vatican where topless women feigned intercourse with crucifixes, chanting slogans against the pope and religion.

Most women tread a path between extremes, a path which is difficult and lonely. Without a firm ideology, this path is strewn with doubts and pitfalls. Some career-oriented women who have delayed motherhood, knowing that they will soon be biologically past their peak and possibly also without a partner, wonder if they should become single mothers using sperm donation. For many women, the workplace does not offer much help with maternity leave or childcare. Even when maternity leave is available, there is a still a lack of understanding about what is needed.

“Think of it as caregiver bias. If you just extend maternity leave, what is implied is that you’re still expecting me to be the primary source of care for my child, when in fact my partner wants to share the load and will need support to do so as well,” said Pamela Culpepper, an expert in corporate diversity and inclusion.²

Intensive mothering

When the glamor of the workplace wears off and/or when the misogyny and the harassment become too much, women who have the financial stability may decide to return to the role of the stay-at-home mother. Perhaps, in the home, she can feel fulfilled. Yet, young American urban and suburban mothers now parent under a new name – “intensive mothering.”

Conducting in-depth interviews of 38 women of diverse backgrounds in the United States, Sharon Hays found women describing their 2- to 4-year-old children as innocent and priceless, and believing that they – the mothers – should be primarily responsible for rearing their children, using “child-rearing methods that are child centered, expert guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially expensive.”³ Ms. Hays clarified four beliefs that were common to all the women in the study: mothers are more suitable caregivers than fathers; mothering should be child centered; parenting consists of a set of skills that need to be learned; and parenting is labor-intensive but an emotionally fulfilling activity.

Hays wondered if this type of mothering developed as the last defense against “the impoverishment of social ties, communal obligations and unremunerated commitments.”³ She suggested that women succumbing to social pressures to return to the home is yet another example of how society is set up to benefit men, capitalism, political leaders, and those who try to maintain a “traditional” form of family life.³ Ms. Hays concluded that the practice of intensive mothering is a class-based practice of privileged white women, entangled with capitalism in that the buying of “essential” baby products is equated with good mothering. She found this ideology to be oppressive of all women, regardless of their social class, ethnic background, household composition, and financial situation. Ms. Hays noted that many women experience guilt for not matching up to these ideals.

In “Dead End Feminism,” Elisabeth Badinter asks if the upheaval in the role of women has caused so much uncertainty that it is easier for women to regress to a time when they were in the home and knew themselves as mothers. They ask if this has been reinforced by the movement to embrace all things natural, eschewing the falseness of chemicals and other things that threaten Mother Earth.⁴

Whatever type of parenting a woman chooses, you can be sure that she, not the father, will be held accountable. There is no escaping the power of the mother: she will continue to symbolize all that is good and bad as the embodiment of the Mother Archetype. All of this is the background against which you will see the new mother in the family. She will not articulate her dilemma, that is your role as the family psychiatrist.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Martin LH et al (eds.). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.

2. How Pamela Culpepper Is Changing The Narrative Of Women In The Workplace. Huffpost. 2020 Mar 6. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pamela-culpepper-diversity-inclusion-empowerment_n_5e56b6ffc5b62e9dc7dbc307.

3. Hays S. Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996.

4. Badinter E. (translated by Borossa J). Dead End Feminism. Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2006.

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

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

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

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

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

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

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

On the 50th anniversary of Title IX’s inception, the Biden administration has proposed changes to the law that would protect transgender students and assault survivors on college and university campuses.

With these changes, the protections provided by Title IX – a civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding – would now be extended to students who identify as trans. The update would ensure that government-funded schools make proper accommodations for a trans student population, such as allowing students to use bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity, and enforcing the use of students’ correct pronouns.

The revisions also seek to undo amendments made to the law by Betsy DeVos, who was secretary of education during the Trump presidency, which strengthened due process protections for students accused of sexual assault and narrowed the definition of sexual harassment. These rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination,” the Biden administration said.

“Our proposed changes will allow us to continue that progress and ensure all our nation’s students – no matter where they live, who they are, or whom they love – can learn, grow, and thrive in school,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, PhD, said in a news release. “We welcome public comment on these critical regulations so we can further the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission of creating educational environments free from sex discrimination and sexual violence.”

The revisions will go through a long period of public comment before they are set into law. Still, the proposed changes mark a way forward for trans students who are not explicitly protected under Title IX, and they offer solace to assault survivors who may have felt discouraged to come forward and report under Ms. DeVos’s rules.

“The proposed regulations reflect the [Education] Department’s commitment to give full effect to Title IX, ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination in education, and that school procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual violence and other forms of sex-based harassment, are clear, effective, and fair to all involved,” said Catherine Lhamon, JD, assistant secretary for the Education Department’s Office Of Civil Rights.

More specific rules about transgender students’ participation in school sports are still to come.

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

On the 50th anniversary of Title IX’s inception, the Biden administration has proposed changes to the law that would protect transgender students and assault survivors on college and university campuses.

With these changes, the protections provided by Title IX – a civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding – would now be extended to students who identify as trans. The update would ensure that government-funded schools make proper accommodations for a trans student population, such as allowing students to use bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity, and enforcing the use of students’ correct pronouns.

The revisions also seek to undo amendments made to the law by Betsy DeVos, who was secretary of education during the Trump presidency, which strengthened due process protections for students accused of sexual assault and narrowed the definition of sexual harassment. These rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination,” the Biden administration said.

“Our proposed changes will allow us to continue that progress and ensure all our nation’s students – no matter where they live, who they are, or whom they love – can learn, grow, and thrive in school,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, PhD, said in a news release. “We welcome public comment on these critical regulations so we can further the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission of creating educational environments free from sex discrimination and sexual violence.”

The revisions will go through a long period of public comment before they are set into law. Still, the proposed changes mark a way forward for trans students who are not explicitly protected under Title IX, and they offer solace to assault survivors who may have felt discouraged to come forward and report under Ms. DeVos’s rules.

“The proposed regulations reflect the [Education] Department’s commitment to give full effect to Title IX, ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination in education, and that school procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual violence and other forms of sex-based harassment, are clear, effective, and fair to all involved,” said Catherine Lhamon, JD, assistant secretary for the Education Department’s Office Of Civil Rights.

More specific rules about transgender students’ participation in school sports are still to come.

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

On the 50th anniversary of Title IX’s inception, the Biden administration has proposed changes to the law that would protect transgender students and assault survivors on college and university campuses.

With these changes, the protections provided by Title IX – a civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding – would now be extended to students who identify as trans. The update would ensure that government-funded schools make proper accommodations for a trans student population, such as allowing students to use bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity, and enforcing the use of students’ correct pronouns.

The revisions also seek to undo amendments made to the law by Betsy DeVos, who was secretary of education during the Trump presidency, which strengthened due process protections for students accused of sexual assault and narrowed the definition of sexual harassment. These rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination,” the Biden administration said.

“Our proposed changes will allow us to continue that progress and ensure all our nation’s students – no matter where they live, who they are, or whom they love – can learn, grow, and thrive in school,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, PhD, said in a news release. “We welcome public comment on these critical regulations so we can further the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission of creating educational environments free from sex discrimination and sexual violence.”

The revisions will go through a long period of public comment before they are set into law. Still, the proposed changes mark a way forward for trans students who are not explicitly protected under Title IX, and they offer solace to assault survivors who may have felt discouraged to come forward and report under Ms. DeVos’s rules.

“The proposed regulations reflect the [Education] Department’s commitment to give full effect to Title IX, ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination in education, and that school procedures for addressing complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual violence and other forms of sex-based harassment, are clear, effective, and fair to all involved,” said Catherine Lhamon, JD, assistant secretary for the Education Department’s Office Of Civil Rights.

More specific rules about transgender students’ participation in school sports are still to come.

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

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lower levels of household income and education in the United States are associated with higher rates of adolescent obesity. These socioeconomic disparities “have widened during the last two decades,” new research shows.

Because obesity in adolescence has immediate and long-term health consequences, this phenomenon “may exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in chronic diseases into adulthood,” study author Ryunosuke Goto, MD, of University of Tokyo Hospital, and colleagues reported  in JAMA Pediatrics.

Groups with higher rates of obesity may also be less likely to access treatment, said Kyung E. Rhee, MD, professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, who was not involved in the new analysis.

“These are the families who have a harder time getting to the doctor’s office or getting to programs because they are working multiple jobs, or they don’t have as much flexibility,” Dr. Rhee told this news organization.
 

20 years of data

A recent study showed a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and weight in adults. Research examining current trends in adolescents has been limited, however, according to the authors of the new study.

To address this gap, Dr. Goto and colleagues looked at obesity trends among approximately 20,000 U.S. children aged 10-19 years using cross-sectional data from the 1999-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

They compared the prevalence of obesity among participants whose household income was 138% of the federal poverty level or less versus those with higher levels of household income. They also examined obesity prevalence according to whether the head of household had graduated college.

Relative to higher-income households, adolescents from lower-income households were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (21.7% vs. 10.4%) or Hispanic (30.6% vs. 13.4%) and to have an unmarried parent (54.5% vs. 23%). They were also more likely to have obesity (22.8% vs. 17.3%).

The prevalence of obesity likewise was higher among adolescents whose head of household did not have a college degree (21.8% vs. 11.6%).  

In an analysis that adjusted for race, ethnicity, height, and marital status of the head of household, the prevalence of obesity increased over 20 years, particularly among adolescents from lower-income homes, the researchers reported.

Lower income was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 4.2 percentage points, and less education was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 9 percentage points.  

By 2015-2018, the gap in obesity prevalence between low-income households and higher-income households was 6.4 percentage points more than it had been during 1999-2002 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-11.4). “When we assessed linear trends, the gap in obesity prevalence by income and education increased by an average of 1.5 (95% CI, 0.4-2.6) and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.0-2.3) percentage points every 4 years, respectively,” according to the researchers.
 

How to treat

Separately, researchers are studying ways to help treat patients with obesity and increase access to treatment. To that end, Dr. Rhee and colleagues developed a new program called Guided Self-Help Obesity Treatment in the Doctor’s Office (GOT Doc).

The guided self-help program was designed to provide similar resources as a leading treatment approach – family-based treatment – but in a less intensive, more accessible way.

Results from a randomized trial comparing this guided self-help approach with family-based treatment were published in Pediatrics.

The trial included 159 children and their parents. The children had an average age of 9.6 years and body mass index z-score of 2.1. Participants were primarily Latinx and from lower income neighborhoods.

Whereas family-based treatment included hour-long sessions at an academic center, the guided self-help program featured a 20-minute session in the office where patients typically see their primary care physician.

Both programs covered how to self-monitor food intake, set healthy goals, and modify the home environment to promote behavioral change. They also discussed body image, bullying, and emotional health. The program is framed around developing a healthy lifestyle rather than weight loss itself, Dr. Rhee said.

Children in both groups had significant reductions in their body mass index percentiles after the 6-month treatment programs. The reductions were largely maintained at 6-month follow-up.

Families in the guided self-help program, however, had a 67% lower risk of dropping out of the study and reported greater satisfaction and convenience. They attended more than half of the treatment sessions, whereas participants assigned to family-based treatment attended 1 in 5 sessions, on average.

The trial was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, the researchers plan to test delivery of a guided self-help program via video calls, Dr. Rhee said.

Having options readily available for families who are interested in treatment for obesity proved valuable to clinicians, Dr. Rhee said. “They could then just refer them down the hall to the interventionist who was there, who was going to then work with the family to make these changes,” she said.

The study by Dr. Goto and colleagues was supported by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The trial by Dr. Rhee et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration. Neither research team had conflict of interest disclosures.

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

Lower levels of household income and education in the United States are associated with higher rates of adolescent obesity. These socioeconomic disparities “have widened during the last two decades,” new research shows.

Because obesity in adolescence has immediate and long-term health consequences, this phenomenon “may exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in chronic diseases into adulthood,” study author Ryunosuke Goto, MD, of University of Tokyo Hospital, and colleagues reported  in JAMA Pediatrics.

Groups with higher rates of obesity may also be less likely to access treatment, said Kyung E. Rhee, MD, professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, who was not involved in the new analysis.

“These are the families who have a harder time getting to the doctor’s office or getting to programs because they are working multiple jobs, or they don’t have as much flexibility,” Dr. Rhee told this news organization.
 

20 years of data

A recent study showed a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and weight in adults. Research examining current trends in adolescents has been limited, however, according to the authors of the new study.

To address this gap, Dr. Goto and colleagues looked at obesity trends among approximately 20,000 U.S. children aged 10-19 years using cross-sectional data from the 1999-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

They compared the prevalence of obesity among participants whose household income was 138% of the federal poverty level or less versus those with higher levels of household income. They also examined obesity prevalence according to whether the head of household had graduated college.

Relative to higher-income households, adolescents from lower-income households were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (21.7% vs. 10.4%) or Hispanic (30.6% vs. 13.4%) and to have an unmarried parent (54.5% vs. 23%). They were also more likely to have obesity (22.8% vs. 17.3%).

The prevalence of obesity likewise was higher among adolescents whose head of household did not have a college degree (21.8% vs. 11.6%).  

In an analysis that adjusted for race, ethnicity, height, and marital status of the head of household, the prevalence of obesity increased over 20 years, particularly among adolescents from lower-income homes, the researchers reported.

Lower income was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 4.2 percentage points, and less education was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 9 percentage points.  

By 2015-2018, the gap in obesity prevalence between low-income households and higher-income households was 6.4 percentage points more than it had been during 1999-2002 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-11.4). “When we assessed linear trends, the gap in obesity prevalence by income and education increased by an average of 1.5 (95% CI, 0.4-2.6) and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.0-2.3) percentage points every 4 years, respectively,” according to the researchers.
 

How to treat

Separately, researchers are studying ways to help treat patients with obesity and increase access to treatment. To that end, Dr. Rhee and colleagues developed a new program called Guided Self-Help Obesity Treatment in the Doctor’s Office (GOT Doc).

The guided self-help program was designed to provide similar resources as a leading treatment approach – family-based treatment – but in a less intensive, more accessible way.

Results from a randomized trial comparing this guided self-help approach with family-based treatment were published in Pediatrics.

The trial included 159 children and their parents. The children had an average age of 9.6 years and body mass index z-score of 2.1. Participants were primarily Latinx and from lower income neighborhoods.

Whereas family-based treatment included hour-long sessions at an academic center, the guided self-help program featured a 20-minute session in the office where patients typically see their primary care physician.

Both programs covered how to self-monitor food intake, set healthy goals, and modify the home environment to promote behavioral change. They also discussed body image, bullying, and emotional health. The program is framed around developing a healthy lifestyle rather than weight loss itself, Dr. Rhee said.

Children in both groups had significant reductions in their body mass index percentiles after the 6-month treatment programs. The reductions were largely maintained at 6-month follow-up.

Families in the guided self-help program, however, had a 67% lower risk of dropping out of the study and reported greater satisfaction and convenience. They attended more than half of the treatment sessions, whereas participants assigned to family-based treatment attended 1 in 5 sessions, on average.

The trial was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, the researchers plan to test delivery of a guided self-help program via video calls, Dr. Rhee said.

Having options readily available for families who are interested in treatment for obesity proved valuable to clinicians, Dr. Rhee said. “They could then just refer them down the hall to the interventionist who was there, who was going to then work with the family to make these changes,” she said.

The study by Dr. Goto and colleagues was supported by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The trial by Dr. Rhee et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration. Neither research team had conflict of interest disclosures.

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

Lower levels of household income and education in the United States are associated with higher rates of adolescent obesity. These socioeconomic disparities “have widened during the last two decades,” new research shows.

Because obesity in adolescence has immediate and long-term health consequences, this phenomenon “may exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in chronic diseases into adulthood,” study author Ryunosuke Goto, MD, of University of Tokyo Hospital, and colleagues reported  in JAMA Pediatrics.

Groups with higher rates of obesity may also be less likely to access treatment, said Kyung E. Rhee, MD, professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, who was not involved in the new analysis.

“These are the families who have a harder time getting to the doctor’s office or getting to programs because they are working multiple jobs, or they don’t have as much flexibility,” Dr. Rhee told this news organization.
 

20 years of data

A recent study showed a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and weight in adults. Research examining current trends in adolescents has been limited, however, according to the authors of the new study.

To address this gap, Dr. Goto and colleagues looked at obesity trends among approximately 20,000 U.S. children aged 10-19 years using cross-sectional data from the 1999-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

They compared the prevalence of obesity among participants whose household income was 138% of the federal poverty level or less versus those with higher levels of household income. They also examined obesity prevalence according to whether the head of household had graduated college.

Relative to higher-income households, adolescents from lower-income households were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black (21.7% vs. 10.4%) or Hispanic (30.6% vs. 13.4%) and to have an unmarried parent (54.5% vs. 23%). They were also more likely to have obesity (22.8% vs. 17.3%).

The prevalence of obesity likewise was higher among adolescents whose head of household did not have a college degree (21.8% vs. 11.6%).  

In an analysis that adjusted for race, ethnicity, height, and marital status of the head of household, the prevalence of obesity increased over 20 years, particularly among adolescents from lower-income homes, the researchers reported.

Lower income was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 4.2 percentage points, and less education was associated with an increase in obesity prevalence of 9 percentage points.  

By 2015-2018, the gap in obesity prevalence between low-income households and higher-income households was 6.4 percentage points more than it had been during 1999-2002 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-11.4). “When we assessed linear trends, the gap in obesity prevalence by income and education increased by an average of 1.5 (95% CI, 0.4-2.6) and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.0-2.3) percentage points every 4 years, respectively,” according to the researchers.
 

How to treat

Separately, researchers are studying ways to help treat patients with obesity and increase access to treatment. To that end, Dr. Rhee and colleagues developed a new program called Guided Self-Help Obesity Treatment in the Doctor’s Office (GOT Doc).

The guided self-help program was designed to provide similar resources as a leading treatment approach – family-based treatment – but in a less intensive, more accessible way.

Results from a randomized trial comparing this guided self-help approach with family-based treatment were published in Pediatrics.

The trial included 159 children and their parents. The children had an average age of 9.6 years and body mass index z-score of 2.1. Participants were primarily Latinx and from lower income neighborhoods.

Whereas family-based treatment included hour-long sessions at an academic center, the guided self-help program featured a 20-minute session in the office where patients typically see their primary care physician.

Both programs covered how to self-monitor food intake, set healthy goals, and modify the home environment to promote behavioral change. They also discussed body image, bullying, and emotional health. The program is framed around developing a healthy lifestyle rather than weight loss itself, Dr. Rhee said.

Children in both groups had significant reductions in their body mass index percentiles after the 6-month treatment programs. The reductions were largely maintained at 6-month follow-up.

Families in the guided self-help program, however, had a 67% lower risk of dropping out of the study and reported greater satisfaction and convenience. They attended more than half of the treatment sessions, whereas participants assigned to family-based treatment attended 1 in 5 sessions, on average.

The trial was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, the researchers plan to test delivery of a guided self-help program via video calls, Dr. Rhee said.

Having options readily available for families who are interested in treatment for obesity proved valuable to clinicians, Dr. Rhee said. “They could then just refer them down the hall to the interventionist who was there, who was going to then work with the family to make these changes,” she said.

The study by Dr. Goto and colleagues was supported by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The trial by Dr. Rhee et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration. Neither research team had conflict of interest disclosures.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.