Women's Health

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at [email protected]. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at [email protected]. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at [email protected]. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at [email protected]. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at [email protected]. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at [email protected]. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of violence against women in Europe. In France alone, 122 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner in 2021. A 2024 study led by French GP Dr Noémie Deparis, who has expertise in domestic violence, revealed that female victims often want their GPs to recognize signs of abuse and offer support. 

In this interview with Medscape, Deparis provides practical advice for doctors on identifying the subtle signs of domestic violence and offering compassionate, effective support to affected patients.

How can GPs identify victims of domestic abuse during consultations? What are the signs and symptoms they should look out for?

GPs play an important role in identifying victims of domestic violence or child abuse. They need to be alert to any signs that might suggest violence. Physical signs may include unexplained or recurring injuries, scars, and bruising in unusual areas such as the torso, back, or face. Delays in seeking care for their injuries may also be a cause for concern.

There are also psychological signs to look out for, including anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and lowered self-esteem. Other signs can include a change in the patient’s behavior or avoidance behavior. A partner who dominates the consultation, prevents the victim from speaking freely, or watches her excessively could also be an indicator.

There are also contextual signs to look out for — for example, frequent consultations for chronic pain, and multiple reasons for vague, unexplained symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, and chronic fatigue. A medical history that is incompatible with the explanations given by the patient can also be a warning sign, as can medical nomadism, where a patient consults with multiple GPs for the same symptoms over a period of time. 

It is crucial to remember that domestic violence can affect individuals across all sociocultural backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations. Every GP’s patient population includes people who may have experienced domestic violence. In my practice, I’ve developed the habit of reminding myself that when there’s a patient I don’t understand or the situation isn’t clear, it’s often a signal to ask the question.

How can GPs initiate conversations on the topic sensitively, should they have concerns?

For GPs to be able to ask the question systematically when they suspect violence, the most important point is that they themselves should be comfortable with the question they are asking. Obviously, the question must be asked in a nonjudgmental way and in a safe and confidential environment. 

The question can be asked systematically, with a direct question and a routine to normalize the topic. For example: “This is a question I ask all my patients: Have you ever experienced violence in your life?”

GPs can also approach the subject in a more general way. For example: “You seem to be under a lot of stress recently. Is everything okay at home?” or “Sometimes when patients come in with these symptoms, they may be under pressure or experiencing stress in their lives. Could this be the case for you?”

It is essential to express understanding without insistence, depending on the patient’s response. 

Are there specific protocols or guidelines in Europe for recognizing and addressing such cases?

I don’t know enough about the particularities of each European country, but in France since 2022, the French National Authority for Health has recommended systematic screening for domestic violence. The French National Medical Council has also issued recommendations for medical certificates and reporting to the judicial authorities of victims of violence without their consent in cases of control and risk of serious and imminent danger. 

The French College of General Practitioners has recently published practical information sheets to help GPs deal with violence. For more than 5 years, the Déclic Violence website has been regularly updated to help GPs deal with and support victims of violence. Across France, an increasing number of women’s centers are being set up in every region. These centers serve as essential resources, not only for women experiencing violence but also for professionals assisting them.

Could you describe what happens in Europe once a GP confirms that a patient is a victim of domestic violence, including what steps they would take and what support is available?

When a doctor confirms a situation of violence, it is important to provide an active listening ear, a safe space, and immediate support adapted to the victim’s situation and wishes. All the information brought to our attention must be written in the medical file, both the facts reported and the physical or psychological clinical findings. This information should enable us to draw up a descriptive medical certificate at the time of the consultation, if the victim so wishes, or at a later date.

It is important not to be left on your own and to refer the victim to other health professionals; to legal, judicial, or social aid structures; to local or national associations; or to a victim support number. 

How can GPs ensure that their involvement helps victims to access broader support systems such as shelters or counseling services?

As in many areas of medical care, GPs have an important role to play in coordinating the efforts of all the professionals involved. Victims of domestic violence often require long-term monitoring, with periods of improvement and setbacks. In my consultations, I often use the concept of the cycle of violence to help patients recognize the powerful control mechanisms at play. Collaboration with support networks ensures that the victim is not isolated after their GP consultation.

What role can GPs play in documenting cases to assist with legal or social interventions?

GPs play a crucial role in documenting cases of domestic violence to support legal and social interventions. This involves maintaining detailed, objective medical records that include descriptions of injuries, the patient’s account in their own words, psychological observations, and findings from physical examinations.

GPs can issue legally recognized medical certificates detailing the injuries and their consistency. Photographic evidence, with patient consent, can further substantiate claims. GPs also contribute to risk assessments, identifying immediate dangers to the victim or others, which inform protective actions by social services or law enforcement. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As family doctors, we often provide contraception care for our patients and they ask many questions about what is the best choice for them. There are many factors that may contribute to our discussion with our patients, a patient’s body weight being just one of them.

We all know that some contraception methods have been shown to be less effective in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 30. Additionally, many hormonal therapies are known to contribute to weight gain.

 

In August 2024, the Society of Family Planning set forth guidelines regarding contraception and body weight. The authors suggest that BMI may not be the best measure to use to reflect body size but suggest that it is the best we have. They state that we should refrain using the classification names contained within the BMI system: “healthy weight,” “obese,” etc. They caution against stigmatizing patients and bringing our own biases into the discussion.

It should be noted that no contraceptive method is contraindicated based on a patient’s body size. However, physicians should use evidence-based information to reach a shared decision with the patient. This should include risks based on body weight/size and its effect on contraception.

Although oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) affect the way steroid hormones are processed, efficacy is thought to be the same in all patients regardless of weight. Most contraception failures in patients taking OCPs are the result of incorrect use of the medication. It is important to note that in women with BMIs greater than 30 the risk of venous thromboembolism is increased with combined hormonal contraceptives. 

It is suggested that women with BMIs greater than 30 avoid hormonal transdermal patches because of higher rates of contraception failure. Vaginal rings have not been adequately studied regarding their effectiveness in patients with BMIs greater than 30.

Contraceptive implants are another good choice for women with BMIs greater than 30. Despite the serum level of etonogestrel being lower than in women with BMIs under 30, most remained high enough to suppress ovulation. IUDs and depo medroxyprogesterone shots also appear to be effective in those with higher BMIs, although there is a slight increased risk of venous thromboembolism in those utilizing depo medroxyprogesterone shots.

It is important for us to be very familiar with all methods of contraception and we need to be comfortable discussing the options with our patients. If a patient desires contraception to avoid pregnancy, she must be informed when effectiveness may be reduced. We also need to be aware of the side effects and let our patients know what to expect. They need as much data as possible to make an informed decision about which method they choose. We may not agree with their decision, but if a patient is aware of what may happen, it is her choice to make.

Many women feel uncomfortable bringing up the discussion of contraception. We need to address this with women of child-bearing age. Often, broaching the topic will open the door to a whole host of concerns. Women with overweight may avoid seeking care because they were made uncomfortable in the medical setting or were made to feel stigmatized. We will never fix the obesity epidemic in the United States if our patients avoid coming into the office.

The guidelines also discuss contraception choices that may lead to weight gain. The medication alone may not be responsible but rather it is a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Along with the warning about weight gain, we should be counseling our patients regarding their lifestyle choices, such as diet and exercise.

The authors of this guideline paper do a great job exploring each contraception method for women with BMI over 30. However, many factors go into deciding which choice is the best for an individual patient. A patient may do poorly at taking pills every day. Another may dislike the concept of inserting a vaginal ring. Each patient should be approached individually and all these factors need to be taken into consideration. Weight is an important factor to consider, but there are many others. If we fail to acknowledge the complexity of our patients, we can never do our best for them.

 

Dr. Girgis is a family medicine practitioner, South River, New Jersey, and clinical assistant professor of family medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As family doctors, we often provide contraception care for our patients and they ask many questions about what is the best choice for them. There are many factors that may contribute to our discussion with our patients, a patient’s body weight being just one of them.

We all know that some contraception methods have been shown to be less effective in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 30. Additionally, many hormonal therapies are known to contribute to weight gain.

 

In August 2024, the Society of Family Planning set forth guidelines regarding contraception and body weight. The authors suggest that BMI may not be the best measure to use to reflect body size but suggest that it is the best we have. They state that we should refrain using the classification names contained within the BMI system: “healthy weight,” “obese,” etc. They caution against stigmatizing patients and bringing our own biases into the discussion.

It should be noted that no contraceptive method is contraindicated based on a patient’s body size. However, physicians should use evidence-based information to reach a shared decision with the patient. This should include risks based on body weight/size and its effect on contraception.

Although oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) affect the way steroid hormones are processed, efficacy is thought to be the same in all patients regardless of weight. Most contraception failures in patients taking OCPs are the result of incorrect use of the medication. It is important to note that in women with BMIs greater than 30 the risk of venous thromboembolism is increased with combined hormonal contraceptives. 

It is suggested that women with BMIs greater than 30 avoid hormonal transdermal patches because of higher rates of contraception failure. Vaginal rings have not been adequately studied regarding their effectiveness in patients with BMIs greater than 30.

Contraceptive implants are another good choice for women with BMIs greater than 30. Despite the serum level of etonogestrel being lower than in women with BMIs under 30, most remained high enough to suppress ovulation. IUDs and depo medroxyprogesterone shots also appear to be effective in those with higher BMIs, although there is a slight increased risk of venous thromboembolism in those utilizing depo medroxyprogesterone shots.

It is important for us to be very familiar with all methods of contraception and we need to be comfortable discussing the options with our patients. If a patient desires contraception to avoid pregnancy, she must be informed when effectiveness may be reduced. We also need to be aware of the side effects and let our patients know what to expect. They need as much data as possible to make an informed decision about which method they choose. We may not agree with their decision, but if a patient is aware of what may happen, it is her choice to make.

Many women feel uncomfortable bringing up the discussion of contraception. We need to address this with women of child-bearing age. Often, broaching the topic will open the door to a whole host of concerns. Women with overweight may avoid seeking care because they were made uncomfortable in the medical setting or were made to feel stigmatized. We will never fix the obesity epidemic in the United States if our patients avoid coming into the office.

The guidelines also discuss contraception choices that may lead to weight gain. The medication alone may not be responsible but rather it is a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Along with the warning about weight gain, we should be counseling our patients regarding their lifestyle choices, such as diet and exercise.

The authors of this guideline paper do a great job exploring each contraception method for women with BMI over 30. However, many factors go into deciding which choice is the best for an individual patient. A patient may do poorly at taking pills every day. Another may dislike the concept of inserting a vaginal ring. Each patient should be approached individually and all these factors need to be taken into consideration. Weight is an important factor to consider, but there are many others. If we fail to acknowledge the complexity of our patients, we can never do our best for them.

 

Dr. Girgis is a family medicine practitioner, South River, New Jersey, and clinical assistant professor of family medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As family doctors, we often provide contraception care for our patients and they ask many questions about what is the best choice for them. There are many factors that may contribute to our discussion with our patients, a patient’s body weight being just one of them.

We all know that some contraception methods have been shown to be less effective in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 30. Additionally, many hormonal therapies are known to contribute to weight gain.

 

In August 2024, the Society of Family Planning set forth guidelines regarding contraception and body weight. The authors suggest that BMI may not be the best measure to use to reflect body size but suggest that it is the best we have. They state that we should refrain using the classification names contained within the BMI system: “healthy weight,” “obese,” etc. They caution against stigmatizing patients and bringing our own biases into the discussion.

It should be noted that no contraceptive method is contraindicated based on a patient’s body size. However, physicians should use evidence-based information to reach a shared decision with the patient. This should include risks based on body weight/size and its effect on contraception.

Although oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) affect the way steroid hormones are processed, efficacy is thought to be the same in all patients regardless of weight. Most contraception failures in patients taking OCPs are the result of incorrect use of the medication. It is important to note that in women with BMIs greater than 30 the risk of venous thromboembolism is increased with combined hormonal contraceptives. 

It is suggested that women with BMIs greater than 30 avoid hormonal transdermal patches because of higher rates of contraception failure. Vaginal rings have not been adequately studied regarding their effectiveness in patients with BMIs greater than 30.

Contraceptive implants are another good choice for women with BMIs greater than 30. Despite the serum level of etonogestrel being lower than in women with BMIs under 30, most remained high enough to suppress ovulation. IUDs and depo medroxyprogesterone shots also appear to be effective in those with higher BMIs, although there is a slight increased risk of venous thromboembolism in those utilizing depo medroxyprogesterone shots.

It is important for us to be very familiar with all methods of contraception and we need to be comfortable discussing the options with our patients. If a patient desires contraception to avoid pregnancy, she must be informed when effectiveness may be reduced. We also need to be aware of the side effects and let our patients know what to expect. They need as much data as possible to make an informed decision about which method they choose. We may not agree with their decision, but if a patient is aware of what may happen, it is her choice to make.

Many women feel uncomfortable bringing up the discussion of contraception. We need to address this with women of child-bearing age. Often, broaching the topic will open the door to a whole host of concerns. Women with overweight may avoid seeking care because they were made uncomfortable in the medical setting or were made to feel stigmatized. We will never fix the obesity epidemic in the United States if our patients avoid coming into the office.

The guidelines also discuss contraception choices that may lead to weight gain. The medication alone may not be responsible but rather it is a combination of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Along with the warning about weight gain, we should be counseling our patients regarding their lifestyle choices, such as diet and exercise.

The authors of this guideline paper do a great job exploring each contraception method for women with BMI over 30. However, many factors go into deciding which choice is the best for an individual patient. A patient may do poorly at taking pills every day. Another may dislike the concept of inserting a vaginal ring. Each patient should be approached individually and all these factors need to be taken into consideration. Weight is an important factor to consider, but there are many others. If we fail to acknowledge the complexity of our patients, we can never do our best for them.

 

Dr. Girgis is a family medicine practitioner, South River, New Jersey, and clinical assistant professor of family medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website. 

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
 

New Screening Option

In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.

“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening. 

“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.” 

In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”

As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.” 

Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.

Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.

Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women. 

The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer. 

Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
 

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

• Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
• Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
• Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).

Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):

• Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
• Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
• Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”

As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”

The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.

Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The association persists even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have experienced infertility without fertility treatment show a 25% higher risk for systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) up to 9 years after delivery, compared with those without infertility.

METHODOLOGY:

• Population-based cohort study analyzed 568,053 singleton births among 465,078 women aged 18-50 years without pre-existing SARD in Ontario, Canada, from 2012 to 2021.
• Participants were categorized into four groups: No infertility with unassisted conception (88.0%), infertility without fertility treatment (9.2%), infertility with noninvasive fertility treatment (1.4%), and infertility with invasive fertility treatment (1.4%).
• Researchers used marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios and 95% CIs, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Analysis included a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years (interquartile range: 4-9 years) from delivery date until SARD diagnosis, death, loss of health insurance, or study end.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of SARD was 12.5 per 10,000 person-years in women with untreated infertility, compared with 9.3 per 10,000 person-years in women without infertility.
• Women with untreated infertility showed an elevated risk for SARD (controlled direct effect hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40) even after accounting for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
• Neither noninvasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79-1.42) nor invasive fertility treatment (total effect HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36) were associated with increased SARD risk.
• The association between untreated infertility and SARD persisted in analyses restricted to women aged < 38 years and in those without endometriosis or other autoimmune diseases.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research efforts should seek to corroborate this association by infertility cause, with a focus on possible mechanisms related to ovulatory, ovarian, and sexual dysfunction. Greater health provider awareness of SARD symptoms and related gynecological issues that may present in women with infertility could facilitate earlier detection and treatment of SARD during the reproductive years,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalie V. Scime of the Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, Canada. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS:

Exposure and outcome misclassification was possible due to the use of published algorithms in health administrative data with unknown or imperfect sensitivity and specificity. The researchers noted that individual-level social and lifestyle factors and underlying causes of infertility were not available, and thus, were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received funding through a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship to Scime and Canada Research Chair to Hilary K. Brown (2019-00158), with support from ICES, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. One coauthor disclosed consulting for Celltrion, Werfen, Organon, MitogenDx, AstraZeneca, Mallinckrodt Canada, and GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on different forms of contemporary menopausal hormone therapy and risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

This is a very large-scale and comprehensive study from Sweden that looked at more than 900,000 women, including more than 77,000 users of hormone therapy. The women were aged 50-58 years and the study leveraged the nationwide register system, where they have information on prescription medications as well as health outcomes that can be linked. 

This study looked at the different forms of hormone therapy: oral vs transdermal, estrogen with and without a progestogen, and also tibolone (which is not available in the United States). The endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), total ischemic heart disease, stroke, a composite of CVD, as well as venous thromboembolism (VTE). 

They found that tibolone was associated with the greatest increased risk for CVD; there was actually an increase in both ischemic heart disease and stroke as well as composite CVD. They did not see an increased risk for VTE. This may be related to the unique pharmacologic profile of tibolone, which has estrogenic, progestogenic, and androgenic properties. 

The estrogens tested in the estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone formulations were not conjugated equine estrogen as tested in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and HERS trials, but mostly oral or transdermal estradiol. With combination estrogen plus progestin, they saw a small (about 20%) increase in ischemic heart disease, similar to what was seen in the WHI. And they saw about a doubling in the risk for VTE, also similar to what was seen in the WHI. With estrogen alone there was no increase in ischemic heart disease or MI, but there was about a 50% increase in VTE — again, similar to the WHI findings. 

With transdermal estradiol (transdermal forms of estrogen), in contrast, there was no clear increase in any of these CVD outcomes. In fact, there was a borderline reduction in both MI and composite CVD. 

So overall, this study suggests greater cardiovascular safety with transdermal compared with oral estrogen. This would be expected, given the first-pass metabolism and increased clotting associated with oral estrogens. 

On the basis of a large body of evidence, we know that for women in early menopause who have bothersome vasomotor symptoms, if they’re healthy, oral or transdermal estrogen could be used according to the preference of the woman. But this study suggests that, especially in women who do have cardiovascular risk factors, it may be very reasonable to lean toward the use of transdermal over oral estrogen among those who are choosing to use hormone therapy. 

We certainly need more research on transdermal estradiol, micronized progesterone, and these contemporary formulations that are being used. But in the meantime, this study in the BMJ does provide very useful information for women and their clinicians.

Dr Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts; Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on different forms of contemporary menopausal hormone therapy and risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

This is a very large-scale and comprehensive study from Sweden that looked at more than 900,000 women, including more than 77,000 users of hormone therapy. The women were aged 50-58 years and the study leveraged the nationwide register system, where they have information on prescription medications as well as health outcomes that can be linked. 

This study looked at the different forms of hormone therapy: oral vs transdermal, estrogen with and without a progestogen, and also tibolone (which is not available in the United States). The endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), total ischemic heart disease, stroke, a composite of CVD, as well as venous thromboembolism (VTE). 

They found that tibolone was associated with the greatest increased risk for CVD; there was actually an increase in both ischemic heart disease and stroke as well as composite CVD. They did not see an increased risk for VTE. This may be related to the unique pharmacologic profile of tibolone, which has estrogenic, progestogenic, and androgenic properties. 

The estrogens tested in the estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone formulations were not conjugated equine estrogen as tested in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and HERS trials, but mostly oral or transdermal estradiol. With combination estrogen plus progestin, they saw a small (about 20%) increase in ischemic heart disease, similar to what was seen in the WHI. And they saw about a doubling in the risk for VTE, also similar to what was seen in the WHI. With estrogen alone there was no increase in ischemic heart disease or MI, but there was about a 50% increase in VTE — again, similar to the WHI findings. 

With transdermal estradiol (transdermal forms of estrogen), in contrast, there was no clear increase in any of these CVD outcomes. In fact, there was a borderline reduction in both MI and composite CVD. 

So overall, this study suggests greater cardiovascular safety with transdermal compared with oral estrogen. This would be expected, given the first-pass metabolism and increased clotting associated with oral estrogens. 

On the basis of a large body of evidence, we know that for women in early menopause who have bothersome vasomotor symptoms, if they’re healthy, oral or transdermal estrogen could be used according to the preference of the woman. But this study suggests that, especially in women who do have cardiovascular risk factors, it may be very reasonable to lean toward the use of transdermal over oral estrogen among those who are choosing to use hormone therapy. 

We certainly need more research on transdermal estradiol, micronized progesterone, and these contemporary formulations that are being used. But in the meantime, this study in the BMJ does provide very useful information for women and their clinicians.

Dr Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts; Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on different forms of contemporary menopausal hormone therapy and risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

This is a very large-scale and comprehensive study from Sweden that looked at more than 900,000 women, including more than 77,000 users of hormone therapy. The women were aged 50-58 years and the study leveraged the nationwide register system, where they have information on prescription medications as well as health outcomes that can be linked. 

This study looked at the different forms of hormone therapy: oral vs transdermal, estrogen with and without a progestogen, and also tibolone (which is not available in the United States). The endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), total ischemic heart disease, stroke, a composite of CVD, as well as venous thromboembolism (VTE). 

They found that tibolone was associated with the greatest increased risk for CVD; there was actually an increase in both ischemic heart disease and stroke as well as composite CVD. They did not see an increased risk for VTE. This may be related to the unique pharmacologic profile of tibolone, which has estrogenic, progestogenic, and androgenic properties. 

The estrogens tested in the estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone formulations were not conjugated equine estrogen as tested in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and HERS trials, but mostly oral or transdermal estradiol. With combination estrogen plus progestin, they saw a small (about 20%) increase in ischemic heart disease, similar to what was seen in the WHI. And they saw about a doubling in the risk for VTE, also similar to what was seen in the WHI. With estrogen alone there was no increase in ischemic heart disease or MI, but there was about a 50% increase in VTE — again, similar to the WHI findings. 

With transdermal estradiol (transdermal forms of estrogen), in contrast, there was no clear increase in any of these CVD outcomes. In fact, there was a borderline reduction in both MI and composite CVD. 

So overall, this study suggests greater cardiovascular safety with transdermal compared with oral estrogen. This would be expected, given the first-pass metabolism and increased clotting associated with oral estrogens. 

On the basis of a large body of evidence, we know that for women in early menopause who have bothersome vasomotor symptoms, if they’re healthy, oral or transdermal estrogen could be used according to the preference of the woman. But this study suggests that, especially in women who do have cardiovascular risk factors, it may be very reasonable to lean toward the use of transdermal over oral estrogen among those who are choosing to use hormone therapy. 

We certainly need more research on transdermal estradiol, micronized progesterone, and these contemporary formulations that are being used. But in the meantime, this study in the BMJ does provide very useful information for women and their clinicians.

Dr Manson, Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School; Chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts; Past President, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012, has disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin E may be best known for boosting skin and eye health as well as immune function. In recent years, researchers have explored the potential benefits of vitamin E on bone loss, especially in women with menopause-related osteoporosis. While data are beginning to roll in from these studies, evidence supporting a positive impact of vitamin E on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains elusive.

For osteoporosis, the rationale for using vitamin E is based on its antioxidant activity, which can scavenge potentially damaging free radicals. Researchers have asked whether vitamin E can help maintain the integrity of bone matrix and stimulate bone formation while minimizing bone resorption, particularly in trabecular (spongy) bone, the bone compartment preferentially affected in perimenopausal bone loss. 

Vitamin E mostly consists of two isomers: alpha-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol. Alpha-tocopherol has higher antioxidant activity and is found in nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, green leafy vegetables, fortified cereals, and vitamin E supplements. Gamma-tocopherol is known for its superior anti-inflammatory properties and accounts for about 70% of the total vitamin E intake in a typical American diet, largely sourced from soybean and other vegetable oils. 

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

Perimenopausal bone loss is caused, to a great extent, by the decrease in sex hormones. Studies of vitamin E in ovariectomized rats have yielded mixed results. This animal model lacks sex hormones and has similar bone changes to those of postmenopausal women. Some animal studies have suggested a positive effect of vitamin E on bone while others have reported no effect. 

Studies in humans also have produced conflicting reports of positive, neutral, and negative associations of vitamin E with bone health. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative examined the relationship between vitamin and mineral antioxidants and bone health in postmenopausal women and found no significant association between antioxidants and bone mineral density. 

Another study examining data from children and adolescents enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database found an inverse association between alpha-tocopherol and lumbar spine bone density, suggesting a deleterious effect on bone. Inverse associations also have been reported in certain studies of postmenopausal women.

High doses of alpha-tocopherol have been linked to a risk for impaired bone health through a variety of mechanisms, such as interference with vitamin K metabolism; competitive binding for alpha-tocopherol transfer protein, inhibiting the entry of beneficial vitamin E isomers, including gamma-tocopherol; and pro-oxidant effects that harm bone. Thus, postmenopausal women taking vitamin E supplements primarily as high doses of alpha-tocopherol might be hindering their bone health. 

Data for gamma-tocopherol are more promising. Some studies hypothesize that gamma-tocopherol might uncouple bone turnover, leading to increased bone formation without affecting bone resorption. Further, a randomized controlled study of mixed tocopherols (rather than alpha-tocopherol) vs placebo reported a protective effect of this preparation on bone outcomes by suppressing bone resorption. This raises the importance of considering the specific forms of vitamin E when evaluating its role in bone health.

 

Limitations of Current Studies

Researchers acknowledge several limitations in studies to date. For example, there are very few randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of vitamin E on bone health. Most studies are cross-sectional or observational, even when longitudinal. Cross-sectional and observational designs prevent us from establishing a causal relationship between vitamin E and bone endpoints. 

Such designs also run the risk of additional confounders that may affect associations between vitamin E and bone, or the lack thereof. These could include both known and unknown confounders. Of note, gamma-tocopherol intake data were not available for certain NHANES studies. 

Further, people often consume multiple nutrients and supplements, complicating the identification of specific nutrient-disease associations. Most human studies estimate tocopherol intake by dietary questionnaires or measure serum tocopherol levels, which reflect short-term dietary intake, while bone mineral density is probably influenced by long-term dietary patterns.

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

Some nutrition experts advocate for vitamin E supplements containing mixed tocopherols, specifically suggesting a ratio of 50-100 IU of gamma-tocopherol per 400 IU of D-alpha-tocopherol. Additional research is essential to confirm and further clarify the role of gamma-tocopherol in bone formation and resorption. In fact, it is also important to explore the influence of other compounds in the vitamin E family on skeletal health.

Until more data are available, we would recommend following the Institute of Medicine’s guidelines for the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin E. This is age dependent, ranging from 4 to 11 mg/d between the ages of 0 and 13 years, and 15 mg/d thereafter. 

Overall, evidence of vitamin E’s impact on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains inconclusive. Although some observational and interventional studies suggest potential benefits, more interventional studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to explore the risks and benefits of vitamin E supplementation and serum vitamin E levels on bone density and fracture risk more thoroughly.

Dr. Pani, Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, UVA School of Medicine; Medical Director, Department of General Medicine, Same Day Care Clinic, both in Charlottesville, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Misra, Professor, Chair, Physician-in-Chief, Department of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, and UVA Health Children’s, Charlottesville, has disclosed being a key opinion leader for Lumos Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin E may be best known for boosting skin and eye health as well as immune function. In recent years, researchers have explored the potential benefits of vitamin E on bone loss, especially in women with menopause-related osteoporosis. While data are beginning to roll in from these studies, evidence supporting a positive impact of vitamin E on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains elusive.

For osteoporosis, the rationale for using vitamin E is based on its antioxidant activity, which can scavenge potentially damaging free radicals. Researchers have asked whether vitamin E can help maintain the integrity of bone matrix and stimulate bone formation while minimizing bone resorption, particularly in trabecular (spongy) bone, the bone compartment preferentially affected in perimenopausal bone loss. 

Vitamin E mostly consists of two isomers: alpha-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol. Alpha-tocopherol has higher antioxidant activity and is found in nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, green leafy vegetables, fortified cereals, and vitamin E supplements. Gamma-tocopherol is known for its superior anti-inflammatory properties and accounts for about 70% of the total vitamin E intake in a typical American diet, largely sourced from soybean and other vegetable oils. 

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

Perimenopausal bone loss is caused, to a great extent, by the decrease in sex hormones. Studies of vitamin E in ovariectomized rats have yielded mixed results. This animal model lacks sex hormones and has similar bone changes to those of postmenopausal women. Some animal studies have suggested a positive effect of vitamin E on bone while others have reported no effect. 

Studies in humans also have produced conflicting reports of positive, neutral, and negative associations of vitamin E with bone health. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative examined the relationship between vitamin and mineral antioxidants and bone health in postmenopausal women and found no significant association between antioxidants and bone mineral density. 

Another study examining data from children and adolescents enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database found an inverse association between alpha-tocopherol and lumbar spine bone density, suggesting a deleterious effect on bone. Inverse associations also have been reported in certain studies of postmenopausal women.

High doses of alpha-tocopherol have been linked to a risk for impaired bone health through a variety of mechanisms, such as interference with vitamin K metabolism; competitive binding for alpha-tocopherol transfer protein, inhibiting the entry of beneficial vitamin E isomers, including gamma-tocopherol; and pro-oxidant effects that harm bone. Thus, postmenopausal women taking vitamin E supplements primarily as high doses of alpha-tocopherol might be hindering their bone health. 

Data for gamma-tocopherol are more promising. Some studies hypothesize that gamma-tocopherol might uncouple bone turnover, leading to increased bone formation without affecting bone resorption. Further, a randomized controlled study of mixed tocopherols (rather than alpha-tocopherol) vs placebo reported a protective effect of this preparation on bone outcomes by suppressing bone resorption. This raises the importance of considering the specific forms of vitamin E when evaluating its role in bone health.

 

Limitations of Current Studies

Researchers acknowledge several limitations in studies to date. For example, there are very few randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of vitamin E on bone health. Most studies are cross-sectional or observational, even when longitudinal. Cross-sectional and observational designs prevent us from establishing a causal relationship between vitamin E and bone endpoints. 

Such designs also run the risk of additional confounders that may affect associations between vitamin E and bone, or the lack thereof. These could include both known and unknown confounders. Of note, gamma-tocopherol intake data were not available for certain NHANES studies. 

Further, people often consume multiple nutrients and supplements, complicating the identification of specific nutrient-disease associations. Most human studies estimate tocopherol intake by dietary questionnaires or measure serum tocopherol levels, which reflect short-term dietary intake, while bone mineral density is probably influenced by long-term dietary patterns.

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

Some nutrition experts advocate for vitamin E supplements containing mixed tocopherols, specifically suggesting a ratio of 50-100 IU of gamma-tocopherol per 400 IU of D-alpha-tocopherol. Additional research is essential to confirm and further clarify the role of gamma-tocopherol in bone formation and resorption. In fact, it is also important to explore the influence of other compounds in the vitamin E family on skeletal health.

Until more data are available, we would recommend following the Institute of Medicine’s guidelines for the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin E. This is age dependent, ranging from 4 to 11 mg/d between the ages of 0 and 13 years, and 15 mg/d thereafter. 

Overall, evidence of vitamin E’s impact on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains inconclusive. Although some observational and interventional studies suggest potential benefits, more interventional studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to explore the risks and benefits of vitamin E supplementation and serum vitamin E levels on bone density and fracture risk more thoroughly.

Dr. Pani, Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, UVA School of Medicine; Medical Director, Department of General Medicine, Same Day Care Clinic, both in Charlottesville, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Misra, Professor, Chair, Physician-in-Chief, Department of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, and UVA Health Children’s, Charlottesville, has disclosed being a key opinion leader for Lumos Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin E may be best known for boosting skin and eye health as well as immune function. In recent years, researchers have explored the potential benefits of vitamin E on bone loss, especially in women with menopause-related osteoporosis. While data are beginning to roll in from these studies, evidence supporting a positive impact of vitamin E on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains elusive.

For osteoporosis, the rationale for using vitamin E is based on its antioxidant activity, which can scavenge potentially damaging free radicals. Researchers have asked whether vitamin E can help maintain the integrity of bone matrix and stimulate bone formation while minimizing bone resorption, particularly in trabecular (spongy) bone, the bone compartment preferentially affected in perimenopausal bone loss. 

Vitamin E mostly consists of two isomers: alpha-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol. Alpha-tocopherol has higher antioxidant activity and is found in nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, green leafy vegetables, fortified cereals, and vitamin E supplements. Gamma-tocopherol is known for its superior anti-inflammatory properties and accounts for about 70% of the total vitamin E intake in a typical American diet, largely sourced from soybean and other vegetable oils. 

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

Perimenopausal bone loss is caused, to a great extent, by the decrease in sex hormones. Studies of vitamin E in ovariectomized rats have yielded mixed results. This animal model lacks sex hormones and has similar bone changes to those of postmenopausal women. Some animal studies have suggested a positive effect of vitamin E on bone while others have reported no effect. 

Studies in humans also have produced conflicting reports of positive, neutral, and negative associations of vitamin E with bone health. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative examined the relationship between vitamin and mineral antioxidants and bone health in postmenopausal women and found no significant association between antioxidants and bone mineral density. 

Another study examining data from children and adolescents enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database found an inverse association between alpha-tocopherol and lumbar spine bone density, suggesting a deleterious effect on bone. Inverse associations also have been reported in certain studies of postmenopausal women.

High doses of alpha-tocopherol have been linked to a risk for impaired bone health through a variety of mechanisms, such as interference with vitamin K metabolism; competitive binding for alpha-tocopherol transfer protein, inhibiting the entry of beneficial vitamin E isomers, including gamma-tocopherol; and pro-oxidant effects that harm bone. Thus, postmenopausal women taking vitamin E supplements primarily as high doses of alpha-tocopherol might be hindering their bone health. 

Data for gamma-tocopherol are more promising. Some studies hypothesize that gamma-tocopherol might uncouple bone turnover, leading to increased bone formation without affecting bone resorption. Further, a randomized controlled study of mixed tocopherols (rather than alpha-tocopherol) vs placebo reported a protective effect of this preparation on bone outcomes by suppressing bone resorption. This raises the importance of considering the specific forms of vitamin E when evaluating its role in bone health.

 

Limitations of Current Studies

Researchers acknowledge several limitations in studies to date. For example, there are very few randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of vitamin E on bone health. Most studies are cross-sectional or observational, even when longitudinal. Cross-sectional and observational designs prevent us from establishing a causal relationship between vitamin E and bone endpoints. 

Such designs also run the risk of additional confounders that may affect associations between vitamin E and bone, or the lack thereof. These could include both known and unknown confounders. Of note, gamma-tocopherol intake data were not available for certain NHANES studies. 

Further, people often consume multiple nutrients and supplements, complicating the identification of specific nutrient-disease associations. Most human studies estimate tocopherol intake by dietary questionnaires or measure serum tocopherol levels, which reflect short-term dietary intake, while bone mineral density is probably influenced by long-term dietary patterns.

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

Some nutrition experts advocate for vitamin E supplements containing mixed tocopherols, specifically suggesting a ratio of 50-100 IU of gamma-tocopherol per 400 IU of D-alpha-tocopherol. Additional research is essential to confirm and further clarify the role of gamma-tocopherol in bone formation and resorption. In fact, it is also important to explore the influence of other compounds in the vitamin E family on skeletal health.

Until more data are available, we would recommend following the Institute of Medicine’s guidelines for the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin E. This is age dependent, ranging from 4 to 11 mg/d between the ages of 0 and 13 years, and 15 mg/d thereafter. 

Overall, evidence of vitamin E’s impact on osteoporosis and hip fracture risk in perimenopausal women remains inconclusive. Although some observational and interventional studies suggest potential benefits, more interventional studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to explore the risks and benefits of vitamin E supplementation and serum vitamin E levels on bone density and fracture risk more thoroughly.

Dr. Pani, Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, UVA School of Medicine; Medical Director, Department of General Medicine, Same Day Care Clinic, both in Charlottesville, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Misra, Professor, Chair, Physician-in-Chief, Department of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, and UVA Health Children’s, Charlottesville, has disclosed being a key opinion leader for Lumos Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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