Women's Health

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

How can we improve the detection, assessment, and treatment of female sexual dysfunction?

Charlotte Methorst, MD, a urologist from Paris, and Carol Burté, MD, a sexologist and andrologist from Nice, dealt with these themes during a session at the French Urology Association’s 2023 conference, emphasizing the need for doctors to be involved in female sexual health.

“There’s currently a real disconnect; doctors talk very little about sexual health, yet it’s a topic that patients would really like to talk about. And this is even truer for women,” said Dr. Methorst.

“We need to spot sexual dysfunction because the topic is rarely broached spontaneously by female patients (19%) and even less so by healthcare workers (9%). Nowadays, it’s a very common problem (40%). Sexual dysfunction affects quality of life and a couple’s relationship. It also can reveal other conditions,” added Dr. Burté.
 

Spot and Assess

In terms of detecting the condition, the reference tool is the self-assessed Female Sexual Function Index, which comprises 19 questions covering six areas of sexual dysfunction: Desire, subjective arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain or discomfort.

But it is also possible to use the Sexual Complaints Screener for Women that evaluates sexual health over the past 6 months, explains Dr. Burté. For example, the patient is asked if she has had a lack of or low interest in sex or sexual desire in the past 6 months and if this has been a problem. She is also asked if she has experienced any pain during or after sexual activity.

To understand the root cause of sexual dysfunction, clinicians need to investigate the patient’s sexual health and perform a medical assessment. It’s also essential to ask the patient about her previous sexual, medical, and psychological history and to evaluate the couple and contributory factors, such as stress, fatigue, etc. This approach is known as the biopsychosocial model.

Once the contributory factors have been determined, relevant information can be given to the patient about her specific sexual problem, and the most suitable therapeutic approaches can be discussed with her.
 

Which Treatment Pathway?

Some problems may be improved with simple advice and lifestyle changes, but sex therapy and medication are options in other cases, explained the two doctors. “Since the causes of sexual dysfunction in women are mostly multifactorial, an integrative approach is needed,” said Dr. Burté.

The two main types of therapy that might be proposed for sexual dysfunction are sex therapies with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and certain medicines being used as first-line treatment.

Using CBT in sexology requires patients and therapists to look past prejudices, preconceived ideas, and dysfunctional patterns and learn new behavioral, cognitive, and attentional strategies in terms of sexual health, regardless of whether an individual or couple is being treated.
 

Which Medicines?

Vasoactive drugs such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and prostaglandin have produced disappointing results. Drugs that act on the central nervous system to stimulate sexual desire, such as bremelanotide and flibanserin, don’t have marketing authorization in France due to their “insufficient” risk-benefit ratio.

However, topical hormone treatments (such as estrogen and dehydroepiandrosterone) are often used, particularly for cases of recurrent cystitis, in postmenopausal women and to treat urinary incontinence. “These topical treatments are very effective and can really change the life of a woman who no longer has a sex life because she is in discomfort and simply has dryness of the vulva and vagina,” said Dr. Burté, who recommends prescribing creams, which are better tolerated than pessaries.

General hormone treatments, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and tibolone are prescribed to postmenopausal women.

Another option not yet authorized in France is testosterone because sexual desire depends on this hormone. An international consensus (2019, 10 learned societies) and recommendations made by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health advise treatment with testosterone in the postmenopausal period, with or without HRT. The dose prescribed is a 10th of the male dose administered subcutaneously (300 µ/d) once a woman›s blood testosterone level has been determined to make sure there is an actual deficiency and to restore her testosterone to near premenopausal levels.

Both doctors indicated that having the chance to work with other doctors as part of a network is essential, especially with a sexual health specialist, if necessary.

Dr. Burté reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. Dr. Methorst reported relationships with several pharmaceutical laboratories.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

How can we improve the detection, assessment, and treatment of female sexual dysfunction?

Charlotte Methorst, MD, a urologist from Paris, and Carol Burté, MD, a sexologist and andrologist from Nice, dealt with these themes during a session at the French Urology Association’s 2023 conference, emphasizing the need for doctors to be involved in female sexual health.

“There’s currently a real disconnect; doctors talk very little about sexual health, yet it’s a topic that patients would really like to talk about. And this is even truer for women,” said Dr. Methorst.

“We need to spot sexual dysfunction because the topic is rarely broached spontaneously by female patients (19%) and even less so by healthcare workers (9%). Nowadays, it’s a very common problem (40%). Sexual dysfunction affects quality of life and a couple’s relationship. It also can reveal other conditions,” added Dr. Burté.
 

Spot and Assess

In terms of detecting the condition, the reference tool is the self-assessed Female Sexual Function Index, which comprises 19 questions covering six areas of sexual dysfunction: Desire, subjective arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain or discomfort.

But it is also possible to use the Sexual Complaints Screener for Women that evaluates sexual health over the past 6 months, explains Dr. Burté. For example, the patient is asked if she has had a lack of or low interest in sex or sexual desire in the past 6 months and if this has been a problem. She is also asked if she has experienced any pain during or after sexual activity.

To understand the root cause of sexual dysfunction, clinicians need to investigate the patient’s sexual health and perform a medical assessment. It’s also essential to ask the patient about her previous sexual, medical, and psychological history and to evaluate the couple and contributory factors, such as stress, fatigue, etc. This approach is known as the biopsychosocial model.

Once the contributory factors have been determined, relevant information can be given to the patient about her specific sexual problem, and the most suitable therapeutic approaches can be discussed with her.
 

Which Treatment Pathway?

Some problems may be improved with simple advice and lifestyle changes, but sex therapy and medication are options in other cases, explained the two doctors. “Since the causes of sexual dysfunction in women are mostly multifactorial, an integrative approach is needed,” said Dr. Burté.

The two main types of therapy that might be proposed for sexual dysfunction are sex therapies with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and certain medicines being used as first-line treatment.

Using CBT in sexology requires patients and therapists to look past prejudices, preconceived ideas, and dysfunctional patterns and learn new behavioral, cognitive, and attentional strategies in terms of sexual health, regardless of whether an individual or couple is being treated.
 

Which Medicines?

Vasoactive drugs such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and prostaglandin have produced disappointing results. Drugs that act on the central nervous system to stimulate sexual desire, such as bremelanotide and flibanserin, don’t have marketing authorization in France due to their “insufficient” risk-benefit ratio.

However, topical hormone treatments (such as estrogen and dehydroepiandrosterone) are often used, particularly for cases of recurrent cystitis, in postmenopausal women and to treat urinary incontinence. “These topical treatments are very effective and can really change the life of a woman who no longer has a sex life because she is in discomfort and simply has dryness of the vulva and vagina,” said Dr. Burté, who recommends prescribing creams, which are better tolerated than pessaries.

General hormone treatments, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and tibolone are prescribed to postmenopausal women.

Another option not yet authorized in France is testosterone because sexual desire depends on this hormone. An international consensus (2019, 10 learned societies) and recommendations made by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health advise treatment with testosterone in the postmenopausal period, with or without HRT. The dose prescribed is a 10th of the male dose administered subcutaneously (300 µ/d) once a woman›s blood testosterone level has been determined to make sure there is an actual deficiency and to restore her testosterone to near premenopausal levels.

Both doctors indicated that having the chance to work with other doctors as part of a network is essential, especially with a sexual health specialist, if necessary.

Dr. Burté reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. Dr. Methorst reported relationships with several pharmaceutical laboratories.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

How can we improve the detection, assessment, and treatment of female sexual dysfunction?

Charlotte Methorst, MD, a urologist from Paris, and Carol Burté, MD, a sexologist and andrologist from Nice, dealt with these themes during a session at the French Urology Association’s 2023 conference, emphasizing the need for doctors to be involved in female sexual health.

“There’s currently a real disconnect; doctors talk very little about sexual health, yet it’s a topic that patients would really like to talk about. And this is even truer for women,” said Dr. Methorst.

“We need to spot sexual dysfunction because the topic is rarely broached spontaneously by female patients (19%) and even less so by healthcare workers (9%). Nowadays, it’s a very common problem (40%). Sexual dysfunction affects quality of life and a couple’s relationship. It also can reveal other conditions,” added Dr. Burté.
 

Spot and Assess

In terms of detecting the condition, the reference tool is the self-assessed Female Sexual Function Index, which comprises 19 questions covering six areas of sexual dysfunction: Desire, subjective arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain or discomfort.

But it is also possible to use the Sexual Complaints Screener for Women that evaluates sexual health over the past 6 months, explains Dr. Burté. For example, the patient is asked if she has had a lack of or low interest in sex or sexual desire in the past 6 months and if this has been a problem. She is also asked if she has experienced any pain during or after sexual activity.

To understand the root cause of sexual dysfunction, clinicians need to investigate the patient’s sexual health and perform a medical assessment. It’s also essential to ask the patient about her previous sexual, medical, and psychological history and to evaluate the couple and contributory factors, such as stress, fatigue, etc. This approach is known as the biopsychosocial model.

Once the contributory factors have been determined, relevant information can be given to the patient about her specific sexual problem, and the most suitable therapeutic approaches can be discussed with her.
 

Which Treatment Pathway?

Some problems may be improved with simple advice and lifestyle changes, but sex therapy and medication are options in other cases, explained the two doctors. “Since the causes of sexual dysfunction in women are mostly multifactorial, an integrative approach is needed,” said Dr. Burté.

The two main types of therapy that might be proposed for sexual dysfunction are sex therapies with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and certain medicines being used as first-line treatment.

Using CBT in sexology requires patients and therapists to look past prejudices, preconceived ideas, and dysfunctional patterns and learn new behavioral, cognitive, and attentional strategies in terms of sexual health, regardless of whether an individual or couple is being treated.
 

Which Medicines?

Vasoactive drugs such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and prostaglandin have produced disappointing results. Drugs that act on the central nervous system to stimulate sexual desire, such as bremelanotide and flibanserin, don’t have marketing authorization in France due to their “insufficient” risk-benefit ratio.

However, topical hormone treatments (such as estrogen and dehydroepiandrosterone) are often used, particularly for cases of recurrent cystitis, in postmenopausal women and to treat urinary incontinence. “These topical treatments are very effective and can really change the life of a woman who no longer has a sex life because she is in discomfort and simply has dryness of the vulva and vagina,” said Dr. Burté, who recommends prescribing creams, which are better tolerated than pessaries.

General hormone treatments, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and tibolone are prescribed to postmenopausal women.

Another option not yet authorized in France is testosterone because sexual desire depends on this hormone. An international consensus (2019, 10 learned societies) and recommendations made by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health advise treatment with testosterone in the postmenopausal period, with or without HRT. The dose prescribed is a 10th of the male dose administered subcutaneously (300 µ/d) once a woman›s blood testosterone level has been determined to make sure there is an actual deficiency and to restore her testosterone to near premenopausal levels.

Both doctors indicated that having the chance to work with other doctors as part of a network is essential, especially with a sexual health specialist, if necessary.

Dr. Burté reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. Dr. Methorst reported relationships with several pharmaceutical laboratories.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

Babies born to mothers living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have a higher risk of being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but only if they are White, a population-based prospective cohort study shows. 

METHODOLOGY

• Investigators analyzed data from a large cohort of singleton children with insurance born in Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals between 2001 and 2014.
• They ascertained ASD diagnosis, maternal race and ethnicity, and maternal address at time of birth.
• Neighborhood disadvantage was determined by the percentage of families in the mother’s neighborhood considered to be living in poverty, unemployed, have female-headed households with children, using public assistance, less than a high school education, among other variables.

TAKEAWAY

• Among 318,300 mothers who delivered babies during the study period, 6350 children were diagnosed with ASD during follow-up, and median age at diagnosis was 3.5 years.
• Greater neighborhood disadvantage at birth was associated with a higher likelihood of ASD diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11)
• ASD diagnoses were more likely among children of mothers who were Black (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25), Asian/Pacific Islander (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20), or Hispanic (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), even after the researchers controlled for neighborhood.
• While odds of an ASD diagnosis were higher among children from minority racial and ethnic groups, neighborhood disadvantage was significantly associated with ASD diagnosis only for children of White mothers (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26).

IN PRACTICE

Investigators noted that they could only speculate about the factors driving the association between neighborhood disadvantage and a stronger risk for ASD diagnosis in children of White mothers. “They may be due to systemic racism, discrimination, and their impact on maternal health during pregnancy,” they wrote.

SOURCE

Xin Yu, MS, and Daniel Hackman, PhD, of the University of Southern California Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online November 15 in JAMA Psychiatry. 

LIMITATIONS

The research was limited by a lack of information on fathers and variables such as incomes, which may have confounded the findings. The authors also acknowledged that the study should be replicated in other health service settings. 

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by the National Institutes on Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Hackman reported receiving grant funding from NIH during the conduct of the study. Other disclosures are available in the original study. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

Babies born to mothers living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have a higher risk of being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but only if they are White, a population-based prospective cohort study shows. 

METHODOLOGY

• Investigators analyzed data from a large cohort of singleton children with insurance born in Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals between 2001 and 2014.
• They ascertained ASD diagnosis, maternal race and ethnicity, and maternal address at time of birth.
• Neighborhood disadvantage was determined by the percentage of families in the mother’s neighborhood considered to be living in poverty, unemployed, have female-headed households with children, using public assistance, less than a high school education, among other variables.

TAKEAWAY

• Among 318,300 mothers who delivered babies during the study period, 6350 children were diagnosed with ASD during follow-up, and median age at diagnosis was 3.5 years.
• Greater neighborhood disadvantage at birth was associated with a higher likelihood of ASD diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11)
• ASD diagnoses were more likely among children of mothers who were Black (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25), Asian/Pacific Islander (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20), or Hispanic (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), even after the researchers controlled for neighborhood.
• While odds of an ASD diagnosis were higher among children from minority racial and ethnic groups, neighborhood disadvantage was significantly associated with ASD diagnosis only for children of White mothers (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26).

IN PRACTICE

Investigators noted that they could only speculate about the factors driving the association between neighborhood disadvantage and a stronger risk for ASD diagnosis in children of White mothers. “They may be due to systemic racism, discrimination, and their impact on maternal health during pregnancy,” they wrote.

SOURCE

Xin Yu, MS, and Daniel Hackman, PhD, of the University of Southern California Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online November 15 in JAMA Psychiatry. 

LIMITATIONS

The research was limited by a lack of information on fathers and variables such as incomes, which may have confounded the findings. The authors also acknowledged that the study should be replicated in other health service settings. 

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by the National Institutes on Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Hackman reported receiving grant funding from NIH during the conduct of the study. Other disclosures are available in the original study. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

Babies born to mothers living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have a higher risk of being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but only if they are White, a population-based prospective cohort study shows. 

METHODOLOGY

• Investigators analyzed data from a large cohort of singleton children with insurance born in Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals between 2001 and 2014.
• They ascertained ASD diagnosis, maternal race and ethnicity, and maternal address at time of birth.
• Neighborhood disadvantage was determined by the percentage of families in the mother’s neighborhood considered to be living in poverty, unemployed, have female-headed households with children, using public assistance, less than a high school education, among other variables.

TAKEAWAY

• Among 318,300 mothers who delivered babies during the study period, 6350 children were diagnosed with ASD during follow-up, and median age at diagnosis was 3.5 years.
• Greater neighborhood disadvantage at birth was associated with a higher likelihood of ASD diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11)
• ASD diagnoses were more likely among children of mothers who were Black (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25), Asian/Pacific Islander (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20), or Hispanic (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), even after the researchers controlled for neighborhood.
• While odds of an ASD diagnosis were higher among children from minority racial and ethnic groups, neighborhood disadvantage was significantly associated with ASD diagnosis only for children of White mothers (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26).

IN PRACTICE

Investigators noted that they could only speculate about the factors driving the association between neighborhood disadvantage and a stronger risk for ASD diagnosis in children of White mothers. “They may be due to systemic racism, discrimination, and their impact on maternal health during pregnancy,” they wrote.

SOURCE

Xin Yu, MS, and Daniel Hackman, PhD, of the University of Southern California Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online November 15 in JAMA Psychiatry. 

LIMITATIONS

The research was limited by a lack of information on fathers and variables such as incomes, which may have confounded the findings. The authors also acknowledged that the study should be replicated in other health service settings. 

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by the National Institutes on Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Hackman reported receiving grant funding from NIH during the conduct of the study. Other disclosures are available in the original study. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Migraine is widely considered a predominantly female disorder. Its frequency, duration, and severity tend to be higher in women, and women are also more likely than men to receive a migraine diagnosis. However, gender expectations, differences in the likelihood of self-reporting, and problems with how migraine is classified make it difficult to estimate its true prevalence in men and women. 

Epidemiologists and migraine specialists discussed these apparent sex differences and the difficulties in obtaining accurate estimates of migraine prevalence in a debate session at the 17th European Headache Congress in Barcelona. 

Different Symptoms

Headache disorders are estimated to affect 50% of the general population ; tension-type headache and migraine are the two most common. According to epidemiologic studies, migraine is more prevalent in women, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. There are numerous studies of why this might be, most of which focus largely on female-related factors, such as hormones and the menstrual cycle. 

“Despite many years of research, there isn’t one clear factor explaining this substantial difference between women and men,” said Tobias Kurth of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. “So the question is: Are we missing something else?”

One factor in these perceived sex differences in migraine is that women seem to report their migraines differently from men, and they also have different symptoms. For example, women are more likely than men to report severe pain, and their migraine attacks are more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, whereas men’s migraines are more often accompanied by aura. 

“By favoring female symptoms, the classification system may not be picking up male symptoms because they’re not being classified in the right way,” Dr. Kurth said, with one consequence being that migraine is underdiagnosed in men. “Before trying to understand the biological and behavioral reasons for these sex differences, we first need to consider these methodological challenges that we all apply knowingly or unknowingly.” 

Christian Lampl, professor of neurology at Konventhospital der Barmherzigen Brüder Linz, Austria, and president of the European Headache Federation, said in an interview, “I’m convinced that this 3:1 ratio which has been stated for decades is wrong, but we still don’t have the data. The criteria we have [for classifying migraine] are useful for clinical trials, but they are useless for determining the male-to-female ratio. 

“We need a new definition of migraine,” he added. “Migraine is an episode, not an attack. Attacks have a sudden onset, and migraine onset is not sudden — it is an episode with a headache attack.” 

Inadequate Menopause Services

Professor Anne MacGregor of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, United Kingdom, specializes in migraine and women’s health. She presented data showing that migraine is underdiagnosed in women; one reason being that the disorder receives inadequate attention from healthcare professionals at specialist menopause services. 

Menopause is associated with an increased prevalence of migraine, but women do not discuss headache symptoms at specialist menopause services, Dr. MacGregor said. 

She then described unpublished results from a survey of 117 women attending the specialist menopause service at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Among the respondents, 34% reported experiencing episodic migraine and an additional 8% reported having chronic migraine. 

“Within this population of women who were not reporting headache as a symptom [to the menopause service until asked in the survey], 42% of them were positive for a diagnosis of migraine,” said Dr. MacGregor. “They were mostly relying on prescribed paracetamol and codeine, or buying it over the counter, and only 22% of them were receiving triptans. 

“They are clearly being undertreated,” she added. “Part of this issue is that they didn’t spontaneously report headache as a menopause symptom, so they weren’t consulting for headache to their primary care physicians.” 

Correct diagnosis by a consultant is a prerequisite for receiving appropriate migraine treatment. Yet, according to a US study published in 2012, only 45.5% of women with episodic migraine consulted a prescribing healthcare professional. Of those who consulted, 89% were diagnosed correctly, and only 68% of those received the appropriate treatment.

A larger, more recent study confirmed that there is a massive unmet need for improving care in this patient population. The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, which analyzed data from nearly 90,000 participants, showed that just 4.8% of people with chronic migraine received consultation, correct diagnosis, and treatment, with 89% of women with chronic migraine left undiagnosed. 

The OVERCOME Study further revealed that although many people with migraine were repeat consulters, they were consulting their physicians for other health problems. 

“This makes it very clear that people in other specialties need to be more aware about picking up and diagnosing headache,” said MacGregor. “That’s where the real need is in managing headache. We have the treatments, but if the patients can’t access them, they’re not much good to them.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.

Once-daily monotherapy with elagolix significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine leiomyomas compared to a placebo, based on data from 82 individuals.

Uterine leiomyomas are common in premenopausal women, and 60% experience heavy menstrual bleeding, but nonsurgical options as an alternative to hysterectomy are limited, wrote Eric Brown, MD, of Gyn-Care, Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues.

Elagolix sodium, an oral, short-acting nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy for up to 24 months of use. However, this treatment protocol is contraindicated or not preferable for some patients, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology , the researchers randomized 54 women to 150 mg of oral elagolix once daily, and 28 to a placebo for 6 months to investigate the safety and efficacy of the lower dose. The study population included women aged 18-51 years with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding association with uterine leiomyomas. Approximately two-thirds (65.9%) were Black.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who met the criteria of menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL during the final month of treatment and menstrual blood loss volume reduction of 50% or more from baseline to the final month of treatment.

After 6 months, nearly half (49.4%) of the elagolix group met the study endpoint compared with 23.3% of the placebo group (P = .035).

Elagolix patients showed significantly greater reductions in both mean and median menstrual blood loss volumes compared with the placebo patients over the study period, and significant differences between the groups in the mean reduction of menstrual blood loss were evident after 1 month of treatment (P < .05 for months 1, 2, 3, and 5).

Results were similar in a further sensitivity analysis in which patients with incomplete final month data were considered nonresponders; 44.4% of elagolix patients and 21.4% of patients met the primary endpoint.

Overall, 51.9% of elagolix patients and 39.3% of placebo patients reported adverse events; the most common were headache and hot flush. Three patients (5.6%) in the elagolix group discontinued the drug because of adverse events. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in the elagolix group; both cases of reported serious adverse events (COVID-19 and an enlarged uvula) occurred in placebo patients.

Patient-reported outcomes were significantly greater in the elagolix patients, based on symptom severity score, 5 of 6 Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) health-related quality of life subscales, and the HRQOL total score at the end of the study.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small study population and lenient eligibility criteria that may have led to a higher placebo response rate, and the study did not monitor bone mineral density, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that elagolix at a 150-mg dose was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in women who took the drug for endometriosis pain, and may be an option for women with contraindications to other therapy or for those who prefer once-daily dosing, they concluded.

The study was funded by AbbVie. Lead author Dr. Brown had no additional financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with AbbVie and other companies.