Gynecology

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms has come a long way in the past decade, but some low risks remain, particularly for certain groups of women. But new naturally occurring estrogens are on the horizon and may provide safer options with similar efficacy for treating hot flashes and other symptoms, researchers report.

“Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the perfect estrogen that has all the things that makes it favorable and none of the negative,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, told attendees at the virtual annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. “It probably doesn’t exist. But there’s an opportunity for us to design better estrogens or take advantage of other naturally occurring estrogens that come closer to that goal of the ideal estrogen,” said Dr. Taylor, professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Those naturally occurring estrogens are the fetal estrogens, estetrol and estriol, which are produced almost exclusively during pregnancy. Only estetrol has been investigated in clinical trials, and it does show some promise, Dr. Taylor said.

“If there’s a better cardiovascular effect without the breast cancer risk, this could be something everyone would want to take,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “It’s the first new estrogen we’ve had in many years, and it makes so much sense that we go back to a naturally occurring estrogen. We’ve never really been able to get a synthetic estrogen [that works].”
 

Hormone therapy still most effective for vasomotor symptoms

The primary benefits of hormone therapy for postmenopausal women are decreased hot flashes and night sweats and the prevention of bone loss, vaginal dryness, and vaginal atrophy. But as women age, particularly past age 70 years, the risks for stroke, heart disease, and breast cancer associated with hormone therapy begin to outweigh the benefits.

That leaves women who are still experiencing those symptoms in a quandary.

“Some people will take on substantial risks because they want to continue taking hormones,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “If they understand what they’re doing and they tell me that they are that miserable, then I will continue their hormones.”

Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Taylor’s work, said some patients have seen her because their primary care providers refused to continue prescribing them hormones at their age, despite serious vasomotor symptoms that interfered with their daily life.

“Women are sometimes not taken seriously, and I think that’s a problem,” Dr. Santoro said. “Women need to be able to make an informed choice about what kinds of risk they’re taking on. Many physicians’ rationales are that hot flashes never killed anybody. Well, they can sure make you miserable.”

Dr. Taylor echoed the importance of taking women’s symptoms seriously and helping them choose the most effective treatments to manage their symptoms.

“The rush of adrenaline, the anxiety, the palpitations, the heart racing, the sweating, all the night sweats [that mean] you can’t sleep at night, and the lack of adequate REM sleep – all these things add up and can really be disruptive to someone’s life,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “I think it’s important that we raise awareness of how severe it can be, about just how low the risks [of hormone therapy] are, and get people more comfortable using hormone therapy, but also continue to search for safer, better products that will eliminate even those low risks.”

A major development toward that goal in the past decade has been therapies that combine an estrogen with a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), which have antiestrogen effects in the endometrium and breast without blocking estrogen in the bones and brain.

One such tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) is the combination of bazedoxifene (20 mg) and conjugated estrogens (0.45 mg). Clinical trials showed that this TSEC reduced the frequency of hot flashes by 74%, compared with 47% with placebo. In addition, TSEC reduced the severity of hot flashes by 39%, compared with 13% with placebo. The combination also improved bone density at the spine and hip without promoting endometrial hyperplasia.

“It looks like it does exactly what we want,” Dr. Taylor told NAMS attendees. “The SERM is antagonizing the effects of the estrogens in the endometrium but not in the bone or brain.” It also led to a decrease in total cholesterol, and there was no increase in breast stimulation or density.

Another advance in recent years has been more choices and more precision with dosing, Dr. Santoro said.

“Where inroads have been made is in having women be aware of all the options they have and in getting the most convenient compounds to people,” she said, despite the confusion and misinformation that have arisen from the proliferation of bioidenticals. “You can dial in a dose for just about anybody.”
 

New estrogens in the pipeline

Neither of these developments, however, have eliminated the risks associated with hormone therapy for women of older age or for women at high risk for breast cancer. Although total elimination of risk may not be possible, recent research suggests that the naturally occurring fetal estrogens estriol and estetrol appear to have SERM-like properties, Dr. Taylor said. These estrogens are made only in pregnancy and appear to have evolved for a purpose different from that of estrone and estradiol.

“While both are weak estrogens by traditional standards, both have unique properties that make them very interesting for therapeutic use,” Dr. Taylor said. In particular, estetrol has a much longer half-life than estriol, making it more appropriate for therapeutic investigation.

A study of estetrol that was published in Menopause in August 2020 showed encouraging results. Despite a fairly sizable placebo effect, there was also a dose-response effect from estetrol on vasomotor symptoms. Low doses did not have much effect, but with higher doses (15 mg), there was a robust, significant improvement in the frequency and severity of hot flashes. So far, Dr. Taylor said, it looks like estetrol can be a highly effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms.

In addition, preclinical research suggests that estetrol may have a better safety profile than currently available therapies, though much more work is needed to know for sure. For example, a 2015 study found that it requires extremely high doses – well above therapeutic levels – for tumor growth to occur. Similarly, a 2019 study found that very high doses of estetrol or estriol were needed before it would stimulate breast cancer cell growth, likely because these are such weak estrogens, compared with estradiol, Dr. Taylor said.

There is currently less information on estetrol’s potential cardiovascular effects, but an animal model suggests positive effects, he said. Giving a mouse estetrol led to an increase in blood vessel dilation with increased blood flow.

The reason these estrogens appear to pose less risk yet still show therapeutic effects appears related to how they bind to the estrogen receptor and what their purpose is, Dr. Taylor told attendees.

“These fetal estrogens are really there probably for developmental programming,” he said. “It’s no wonder they may have some unique and favorable properties for therapeutic use. I’m really enthusiastic to see this explored further as a potential new hormonal therapy.”

Dr. Taylor disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Santoro reported stock ownership in Menogenix and consulting or advising for Ansh Labs, Menogenix, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms has come a long way in the past decade, but some low risks remain, particularly for certain groups of women. But new naturally occurring estrogens are on the horizon and may provide safer options with similar efficacy for treating hot flashes and other symptoms, researchers report.

“Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the perfect estrogen that has all the things that makes it favorable and none of the negative,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, told attendees at the virtual annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. “It probably doesn’t exist. But there’s an opportunity for us to design better estrogens or take advantage of other naturally occurring estrogens that come closer to that goal of the ideal estrogen,” said Dr. Taylor, professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Those naturally occurring estrogens are the fetal estrogens, estetrol and estriol, which are produced almost exclusively during pregnancy. Only estetrol has been investigated in clinical trials, and it does show some promise, Dr. Taylor said.

“If there’s a better cardiovascular effect without the breast cancer risk, this could be something everyone would want to take,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “It’s the first new estrogen we’ve had in many years, and it makes so much sense that we go back to a naturally occurring estrogen. We’ve never really been able to get a synthetic estrogen [that works].”
 

Hormone therapy still most effective for vasomotor symptoms

The primary benefits of hormone therapy for postmenopausal women are decreased hot flashes and night sweats and the prevention of bone loss, vaginal dryness, and vaginal atrophy. But as women age, particularly past age 70 years, the risks for stroke, heart disease, and breast cancer associated with hormone therapy begin to outweigh the benefits.

That leaves women who are still experiencing those symptoms in a quandary.

“Some people will take on substantial risks because they want to continue taking hormones,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “If they understand what they’re doing and they tell me that they are that miserable, then I will continue their hormones.”

Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Taylor’s work, said some patients have seen her because their primary care providers refused to continue prescribing them hormones at their age, despite serious vasomotor symptoms that interfered with their daily life.

“Women are sometimes not taken seriously, and I think that’s a problem,” Dr. Santoro said. “Women need to be able to make an informed choice about what kinds of risk they’re taking on. Many physicians’ rationales are that hot flashes never killed anybody. Well, they can sure make you miserable.”

Dr. Taylor echoed the importance of taking women’s symptoms seriously and helping them choose the most effective treatments to manage their symptoms.

“The rush of adrenaline, the anxiety, the palpitations, the heart racing, the sweating, all the night sweats [that mean] you can’t sleep at night, and the lack of adequate REM sleep – all these things add up and can really be disruptive to someone’s life,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “I think it’s important that we raise awareness of how severe it can be, about just how low the risks [of hormone therapy] are, and get people more comfortable using hormone therapy, but also continue to search for safer, better products that will eliminate even those low risks.”

A major development toward that goal in the past decade has been therapies that combine an estrogen with a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), which have antiestrogen effects in the endometrium and breast without blocking estrogen in the bones and brain.

One such tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) is the combination of bazedoxifene (20 mg) and conjugated estrogens (0.45 mg). Clinical trials showed that this TSEC reduced the frequency of hot flashes by 74%, compared with 47% with placebo. In addition, TSEC reduced the severity of hot flashes by 39%, compared with 13% with placebo. The combination also improved bone density at the spine and hip without promoting endometrial hyperplasia.

“It looks like it does exactly what we want,” Dr. Taylor told NAMS attendees. “The SERM is antagonizing the effects of the estrogens in the endometrium but not in the bone or brain.” It also led to a decrease in total cholesterol, and there was no increase in breast stimulation or density.

Another advance in recent years has been more choices and more precision with dosing, Dr. Santoro said.

“Where inroads have been made is in having women be aware of all the options they have and in getting the most convenient compounds to people,” she said, despite the confusion and misinformation that have arisen from the proliferation of bioidenticals. “You can dial in a dose for just about anybody.”
 

New estrogens in the pipeline

Neither of these developments, however, have eliminated the risks associated with hormone therapy for women of older age or for women at high risk for breast cancer. Although total elimination of risk may not be possible, recent research suggests that the naturally occurring fetal estrogens estriol and estetrol appear to have SERM-like properties, Dr. Taylor said. These estrogens are made only in pregnancy and appear to have evolved for a purpose different from that of estrone and estradiol.

“While both are weak estrogens by traditional standards, both have unique properties that make them very interesting for therapeutic use,” Dr. Taylor said. In particular, estetrol has a much longer half-life than estriol, making it more appropriate for therapeutic investigation.

A study of estetrol that was published in Menopause in August 2020 showed encouraging results. Despite a fairly sizable placebo effect, there was also a dose-response effect from estetrol on vasomotor symptoms. Low doses did not have much effect, but with higher doses (15 mg), there was a robust, significant improvement in the frequency and severity of hot flashes. So far, Dr. Taylor said, it looks like estetrol can be a highly effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms.

In addition, preclinical research suggests that estetrol may have a better safety profile than currently available therapies, though much more work is needed to know for sure. For example, a 2015 study found that it requires extremely high doses – well above therapeutic levels – for tumor growth to occur. Similarly, a 2019 study found that very high doses of estetrol or estriol were needed before it would stimulate breast cancer cell growth, likely because these are such weak estrogens, compared with estradiol, Dr. Taylor said.

There is currently less information on estetrol’s potential cardiovascular effects, but an animal model suggests positive effects, he said. Giving a mouse estetrol led to an increase in blood vessel dilation with increased blood flow.

The reason these estrogens appear to pose less risk yet still show therapeutic effects appears related to how they bind to the estrogen receptor and what their purpose is, Dr. Taylor told attendees.

“These fetal estrogens are really there probably for developmental programming,” he said. “It’s no wonder they may have some unique and favorable properties for therapeutic use. I’m really enthusiastic to see this explored further as a potential new hormonal therapy.”

Dr. Taylor disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Santoro reported stock ownership in Menogenix and consulting or advising for Ansh Labs, Menogenix, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms has come a long way in the past decade, but some low risks remain, particularly for certain groups of women. But new naturally occurring estrogens are on the horizon and may provide safer options with similar efficacy for treating hot flashes and other symptoms, researchers report.

“Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the perfect estrogen that has all the things that makes it favorable and none of the negative,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, told attendees at the virtual annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. “It probably doesn’t exist. But there’s an opportunity for us to design better estrogens or take advantage of other naturally occurring estrogens that come closer to that goal of the ideal estrogen,” said Dr. Taylor, professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Those naturally occurring estrogens are the fetal estrogens, estetrol and estriol, which are produced almost exclusively during pregnancy. Only estetrol has been investigated in clinical trials, and it does show some promise, Dr. Taylor said.

“If there’s a better cardiovascular effect without the breast cancer risk, this could be something everyone would want to take,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “It’s the first new estrogen we’ve had in many years, and it makes so much sense that we go back to a naturally occurring estrogen. We’ve never really been able to get a synthetic estrogen [that works].”
 

Hormone therapy still most effective for vasomotor symptoms

The primary benefits of hormone therapy for postmenopausal women are decreased hot flashes and night sweats and the prevention of bone loss, vaginal dryness, and vaginal atrophy. But as women age, particularly past age 70 years, the risks for stroke, heart disease, and breast cancer associated with hormone therapy begin to outweigh the benefits.

That leaves women who are still experiencing those symptoms in a quandary.

“Some people will take on substantial risks because they want to continue taking hormones,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. “If they understand what they’re doing and they tell me that they are that miserable, then I will continue their hormones.”

Dr. Santoro, who was not involved in Taylor’s work, said some patients have seen her because their primary care providers refused to continue prescribing them hormones at their age, despite serious vasomotor symptoms that interfered with their daily life.

“Women are sometimes not taken seriously, and I think that’s a problem,” Dr. Santoro said. “Women need to be able to make an informed choice about what kinds of risk they’re taking on. Many physicians’ rationales are that hot flashes never killed anybody. Well, they can sure make you miserable.”

Dr. Taylor echoed the importance of taking women’s symptoms seriously and helping them choose the most effective treatments to manage their symptoms.

“The rush of adrenaline, the anxiety, the palpitations, the heart racing, the sweating, all the night sweats [that mean] you can’t sleep at night, and the lack of adequate REM sleep – all these things add up and can really be disruptive to someone’s life,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “I think it’s important that we raise awareness of how severe it can be, about just how low the risks [of hormone therapy] are, and get people more comfortable using hormone therapy, but also continue to search for safer, better products that will eliminate even those low risks.”

A major development toward that goal in the past decade has been therapies that combine an estrogen with a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), which have antiestrogen effects in the endometrium and breast without blocking estrogen in the bones and brain.

One such tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) is the combination of bazedoxifene (20 mg) and conjugated estrogens (0.45 mg). Clinical trials showed that this TSEC reduced the frequency of hot flashes by 74%, compared with 47% with placebo. In addition, TSEC reduced the severity of hot flashes by 39%, compared with 13% with placebo. The combination also improved bone density at the spine and hip without promoting endometrial hyperplasia.

“It looks like it does exactly what we want,” Dr. Taylor told NAMS attendees. “The SERM is antagonizing the effects of the estrogens in the endometrium but not in the bone or brain.” It also led to a decrease in total cholesterol, and there was no increase in breast stimulation or density.

Another advance in recent years has been more choices and more precision with dosing, Dr. Santoro said.

“Where inroads have been made is in having women be aware of all the options they have and in getting the most convenient compounds to people,” she said, despite the confusion and misinformation that have arisen from the proliferation of bioidenticals. “You can dial in a dose for just about anybody.”
 

New estrogens in the pipeline

Neither of these developments, however, have eliminated the risks associated with hormone therapy for women of older age or for women at high risk for breast cancer. Although total elimination of risk may not be possible, recent research suggests that the naturally occurring fetal estrogens estriol and estetrol appear to have SERM-like properties, Dr. Taylor said. These estrogens are made only in pregnancy and appear to have evolved for a purpose different from that of estrone and estradiol.

“While both are weak estrogens by traditional standards, both have unique properties that make them very interesting for therapeutic use,” Dr. Taylor said. In particular, estetrol has a much longer half-life than estriol, making it more appropriate for therapeutic investigation.

A study of estetrol that was published in Menopause in August 2020 showed encouraging results. Despite a fairly sizable placebo effect, there was also a dose-response effect from estetrol on vasomotor symptoms. Low doses did not have much effect, but with higher doses (15 mg), there was a robust, significant improvement in the frequency and severity of hot flashes. So far, Dr. Taylor said, it looks like estetrol can be a highly effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms.

In addition, preclinical research suggests that estetrol may have a better safety profile than currently available therapies, though much more work is needed to know for sure. For example, a 2015 study found that it requires extremely high doses – well above therapeutic levels – for tumor growth to occur. Similarly, a 2019 study found that very high doses of estetrol or estriol were needed before it would stimulate breast cancer cell growth, likely because these are such weak estrogens, compared with estradiol, Dr. Taylor said.

There is currently less information on estetrol’s potential cardiovascular effects, but an animal model suggests positive effects, he said. Giving a mouse estetrol led to an increase in blood vessel dilation with increased blood flow.

The reason these estrogens appear to pose less risk yet still show therapeutic effects appears related to how they bind to the estrogen receptor and what their purpose is, Dr. Taylor told attendees.

“These fetal estrogens are really there probably for developmental programming,” he said. “It’s no wonder they may have some unique and favorable properties for therapeutic use. I’m really enthusiastic to see this explored further as a potential new hormonal therapy.”

Dr. Taylor disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Santoro reported stock ownership in Menogenix and consulting or advising for Ansh Labs, Menogenix, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

[email protected]

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

[email protected]

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

[email protected]

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Hysterectomies performed using an abdominal surgical approach or in women with endometriosis are more likely to carry an increased risk of bowel injury, according to recent results published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ciara Gosier

Cici R. Zhu, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa, and colleagues retrospectively studied the incidence of bowel injury in women participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent hysterectomy for a benign surgical indication between 2012 and 2016.

“Although the absolute incidence is low, bowel injuries are among the most devastating complications of hysterectomy, as they can lead to a wide range of complications, including peritonitis, abscess formation, enterocutaneous fistula, sepsis, and even death,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “Secondary bowel surgeries are often required, and associated ileostomies and colostomies can be distressing to patients. This not only severely affects quality of life, but the resultant readmissions, reoperations, and prolonged hospitalizations can impose a substantial economic toll on the health care system.”

Overall, 155,557 women were included in the study. The cohort consisted of women who were a mean age of 48 years and had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m². The researchers evaluated whether baseline characteristics, clinical, and surgical variables impacted the incidence of bowel injury. They analyzed data of participant age, race (White vs. non-White), BMI, comorbid conditions (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and bleeding disorder), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical approach (abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal), hysterectomy type (total or subtotal), lysis of adhesions, operation time, and admission type. Indication for hysterectomy was also evaluated, which included uterine leiomyoma (32.9%), menstrual disorders (22.0%), genital prolapse (13.1%), endometriosis (6.8%) and pelvic pain (3.8%).
 

Endometriosis, abdominal approach raise risk

There were 610 cases of bowel injury observed in the study, for an overall injury rate of 0.39%. A majority of the repairs were done during surgery (82.3%), with the remainder performed within 30 days of hysterectomy. Women with endometriosis had the most frequent incidence of bowel injury (0.59%), but it also occurred in women with uterine leiomyomas (0.47%), pain (0.24%), menstrual disorders (0.20%), genital prolapse (0.18%) and other indications (0.56%).

Dr. Zhu and colleagues found risk of bowel injury was higher among women 55 years and older, compared with women aged younger than 40 years (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.15); in non-White women, compared with White women (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28); and in women with class 3 obesity, compared with women at a normal BMI (OR, 1.81; 95 CI, 1.40-2.34). Other risk factors for bowel injury included hypertension (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64) and ASA III, IV, and V classification, compared with ASA I classification (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.43-2.58).

Researchers noted there was a statistically significant difference in rates of bowel injury between hysterectomy indications (P < .001). When compared with endometriosis, there were lower odds of bowel injury among women with uterine leiomyomas (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.59), genital prolapse (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67), and menstrual disorder (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48).

Surgical factors also impacted the risk for bowel injury. In hysterectomies where the abdominal approach was used, there was an over-tenfold risk of bowel injury, compared with when a vaginal approach was used (OR, 10.80; 95% CI, 7.31-15.95). Lysis of lesions carried an increased risk of bowel injury (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.20-4.40), and a subtotal hysterectomy increased the risk of bowel injury, compared with when a total hysterectomy was performed (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.42-2.18).

The researchers acknowledged the lack of detailed clinical information on surgical indications, severity of bowel injury, and training of the surgeons and surgical team, and potential for missing information may limit the application of the study findings.
 

Findings must be cautiously interpreted

Kate Stampler, DO, assistant program director of minimally invasive gynecologic robotic surgery at Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the study by Zhu et al. is a good reminder of the patient and surgical risk factors that can occur that affect outcomes of hysterectomy.

“In my clinical practice, I have not seen a significant difference in route of hysterectomy and bowel injury, however, this must be interpreted carefully in the context of an infrequent complication and as an MIS [minimally invasive surgery]-trained surgeon performing various complex cases,” she said. Other reports in the literature have not identified a difference in the rate of bowel injury based on surgical approach, but the study by Zhu et al. is “unique to the literature in its large sample size,” she explained.

“I would encourage less experienced surgeons to operate with a higher-volume assistant surgeon if the end result means being able to perform an MIS approach, or appropriately offer referral if feasible to another surgeon for best practices. A thorough informed consent of the available route of hysterectomy is integral to good surgical care and allows for shared decision making for the patient,” Dr. Stampler said. “Additionally, participation in a large quality reporting system such as ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database should be considered broadly and we should strive for overall high-value care.”

Regarding endometriosis being a risk factor for bowel injury during hysterectomy, Dr. Stampler noted that severe endometriosis poses a significant challenge for gynecologic surgeons. “Loss of anatomic planes due to dense adhesions and fibrosis, in addition to deep infiltrating lesions, can add significant time, complexity, and risk to the procedure. This can be compounded in a scenario with less experienced surgeons and unplanned disease at the time of surgery.”

Dr. Stampler also applauded the paper for highlighting the differences in White and non-White patient outcomes for hysterectomy, and emphasized that it is not new information. “Their call to continue to address the social determinants of health in an effort to minimize risk and maximize safety for our patients of color is of critical importance now more than ever. While the hypothesis for this study was not meant to address this challenge specifically, the data should serve as a striking reminder that while several factors may be playing a role in surgical complications, ongoing systemic racism is a component that needs dedicated time and attention.”

Dr. Zhu and three coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures. One coauthor received support from the University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation to conduct this research. Two other coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical and medical technology companies. Dr. Stampler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zhu CR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004007.

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.