Women's Health

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.¹ The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.

What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:

• Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
• No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.²

What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.

And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.²

What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.³

The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:

In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”²

And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”²

The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.⁴

Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.

What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.

For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.

For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.

For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.¹ The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.

What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:

• Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
• No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.²

What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.

And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.²

What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.³

The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:

In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”²

And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”²

The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.⁴

Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.

What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.

For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.

For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.

For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently issued draft recommendations on breast cancer screening that lower the starting age for routine mammography screening for those at average risk.¹ The proposed recommendations are an update to USPSTF’s 2016 guidance on this topic.

What’s different. There are 2 major differences in the new recommendations:

• Recommendation for routine mammography starting at age 40 for women at average risk for breast cancer (eg, no personal or family history or genetic risk factors). This is a “B” recommendation (offer or provide the service). Previously, the recommended age to start routine mammography was 50 years, with a “C” recommendation (individual decision-making) for those ages 40 to 49 years.
• No mention of digital tomosynthesis. Previously, this screening modality was rated as an “I” (insufficient evidence to assess). While the new draft recommendation does not mention tomosynthesis, the related evidence report concludes that there is still insufficient evidence to assess it.²

What’s the same. Several important recommendations have not changed. The USPSTF continues to state that the evidence is insufficient to assess the value of (1) supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense breasts and negative mammograms and (2) mammography in women ages 75 years and older.

And, most importantly, the USPSTF continues to recommend biennial, rather than annual, mammography screening. This recommendation is based on studies that show very little difference in outcomes between these strategies but higher rates of false-positive tests and subsequent biopsies with annual testing.²

What others say. USPSTF’s draft recommendations continue to differ from those of the American Cancer Society, which for average-risk women recommend individual decision-making from ages 40 to 45 years; routine annual mammography for those ages 45 to 54 years; annual or biennial mammography for those ages 55 years and older; and continued screening for women older than 75 years who are in good health and have a life expectancy ≥ 10 years.³

The USPSTF’s rationale for lowering the age at which to start routine mammography is a little puzzling. Several conclusions in the draft evidence report seem to contradict this recommendation:

In the summary of screening effectiveness, the report states “For women ages 39 to 49 years, the combined [relative risk] for breast cancer mortality was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; 9 trials); absolute breast cancer mortality reduction was 2.9 (95% CI, –0.6 to 8.9) deaths prevented per 10,000 women over 10 years. None of the trials indicated statistically significantly reduced breast cancer mortality with screening….”²

And in a summary of screening harms, it states that for “every case of invasive breast cancer detected by mammography screening in women age[s] 40 to 49 years, 464 women had screening mammography, 58 were recommended for additional diagnostic imaging, and 10 were recommended for biopsies.”²

The USPSTF apparently based its decision on a modeling study conducted by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) at USPSTF’s request. This analysis found that screening biennially from ages 50 to 74 years resulted in about 7 breast cancer deaths averted over the lifetimes of 1000 females and that 1 additional death was averted if the starting age for screening was 40 years.⁴

Financial implications. The USPSTF’s change from a “C” to a “B” recommendation for women ages 40 to 49 years has financial implications. The Affordable Care Act mandates that all “A” and “B” recommendations by the USPSTF have to be provided by commercial health plans with no out-of-pocket costs. (This is currently being challenged in the courts.) However, any follow-up testing for abnormal results is not subject to this provision—so false-positive work-ups and biopsies may result in out-of-pocket costs.

What to discuss with your patients. For women ages 40 to 50 years, discuss the differences in mammography recommendations and the potential risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as financial implications; respect the patient’s decision.

For those ages 50 to 74 years, recommend biennial mammography.

For those older than 74 years, assess life expectancy and other health problems. Discuss the potential risks and benefits of the procedure and respect the patient’s decision.

For all patients, document all discussions and decisions.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

Vaginal microbiota transfer may facilitate normal neurodevelopment for infants born via cesarean delivery, based on data from a new pilot study of 68 infants.

Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.

“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
 

‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores

In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.

The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.

At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.

ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.

An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.

“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.

No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.

However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
 

Limitations and outlook

Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.

“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.

“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”

Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.

“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”

Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.

“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.

A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
 

Safety and efficacy support further studies

“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”

The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.

“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.

Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.

“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”

Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaginal microbiota transfer may facilitate normal neurodevelopment for infants born via cesarean delivery, based on data from a new pilot study of 68 infants.

Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.

“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
 

‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores

In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.

The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.

At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.

ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.

An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.

“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.

No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.

However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
 

Limitations and outlook

Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.

“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.

“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”

Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.

“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”

Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.

“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.

A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
 

Safety and efficacy support further studies

“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”

The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.

“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.

Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.

“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”

Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaginal microbiota transfer may facilitate normal neurodevelopment for infants born via cesarean delivery, based on data from a new pilot study of 68 infants.

Previous studies have shown that gut microbiota in infancy could affect neurodevelopment, and infants delivered by cesarean are not exposed to potentially helpful microbes acquired by infants during vaginal delivery, wrote Lepeng Zhou, MD, of Southern Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

“Infants delivered by C-section start life with very different bacteria than those born vaginally,” corresponding author Jose Clemente, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Because this is the first time the newborn is exposed to microbes, we and others have hypothesized for some time that this ‘first encounter’ might be significant to shape the development of the baby,” he said.

“A few years ago, we demonstrated that it is possible to change the microbiome of C-section–delivered infants using an intervention that makes their microbiome more similar to that of a vaginally-delivered infant,” Dr. Clemente told this news organization. “In this study just published, we show that this procedure not only changes the microbiome of C-section infants, but it also modifies a health outcome (in this case, neurodevelopment). This is highly significant because it opens the way to reduce the risk that C-section infants have for certain conditions through a very simple microbial intervention,” he said.
 

‘Significantly higher’ ASQ-3 scores

In the current study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, the researchers examined the impact of vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT) on the neurodevelopment of cesarean-delivered infants. They randomized 35 women scheduled for cesarean delivery with a single infant to VMT and 41 to a control intervention of saline gauze for their infants immediately after delivery.

The primary outcome of infant neurodevelopment was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) score at 6 months. The researchers also collected fecal samples and assessed safety outcomes for the infants at 3, 7, 30, and 42 days after birth. The final analysis comprised 32 infants in the VMT group and 36 in the control group. The mean age of the mothers was 32 years; the mean gestational age of the infants was 39 weeks, but the difference was significant and slightly less in the VMT group compared with the controls (38.38 weeks vs. 39.13 weeks, P = .007). A group of 33 vaginally-delivered infants (VD) underwent ASQ-3 testing to serve as a reference group.

At 6 months, ASQ-3 scores were significantly higher (10.09%, P = .014) with VMT compared with controls, and the difference remained significant after adjustment for multiple factors including gestational age.

ASQ-3 total scores at 6 months were not significantly different between the VMT group and the VD reference group (mean difference of 8.84 VMT to VD, P = .346); scores between these groups also were similar at 3 months (mean difference of –1.48 VMT to VD, P = .900) and no significant differences appeared in ASQ-3 subdomains between these groups at either time period.

An examination of gut metabolites in stool showed significant differences in fecal metabolites and metabolic function, signs of gut microbiota maturation, the researchers noted.

“Interestingly, all the genera and metabolites that exhibited positive correlations with neurodevelopmental scores were upregulated in the VMT group, whereas the only negative correlation of Klebsiella was downregulated, indicating that VMT may impact neurodevelopment through the modulation of specific gut microbial genera and metabolites,” the researchers wrote.

No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the study period. Nine adverse events were reported; 4 in the VMT group and 5 in the control group. The most common AEs were mild skin disorders, including papules, pustules, and erythema.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for transfer not only of vaginal microbiota, but also vaginal metabolites, mycobiome, and virome, which blurs the potential mechanism of VMT, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the relatively short study period, small sample size, and cervical HPV screening within the past 5 years, not during pregnancy, they wrote.

However, the results suggest that VMT is safe, and may help improve the fecal microbiome in cesarean-delivered infants, and the long-term effects merit further studies in larger populations, they concluded.
 

Limitations and outlook

Dr. Clemente said in an interview that the researchers were “hopeful that the study would demonstrate a health benefit, as it does with some limitations.” The current study findings confirm some previous results showing that modification of the microbiomes of C-section infants is possible through a transfer of maternal vaginal microbes, he said.

“There is also an important aspect that was confirmed here: The lack of serious adverse events associated with the procedure, and the fact that transferring vaginal microbes did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to the control group or to vaginally-delivered infants. This is fundamental to establish that using rigorous exclusion criteria we can perform this procedure safely for infants and mothers,” he added.

“We are at very early stages yet to talk about clinical implications,” said Dr. Clemente. “This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a benefit to the transfer of microbes from mothers to infants, and as such it opens the way for future trials that confirm these findings. The clinical application is still in the future, but this is an important first step towards that goal.”

Interest in restoring gut microbiota to potentially benefit infants persists, but a recent study published in Frontiers and Cellular and Infection Microbiology contradicted the potential association between maternal vaginal microbiome and an infant’s gut microbiome based on an analysis of infant stool.

“There are many reasons why different studies might reach different conclusions: The experimental procedures, the analytical methods, the cohort under study,” Dr. Clemente said when asked to comment on the Frontiers study. “Further studies are needed to establish whether this procedure is equally effective under all conditions and whether health benefits are generalizable or specific to particular populations.”

Several research gaps remain, Dr. Clemente said. “First, neurodevelopment was measured through a questionnaire that captures various aspects such as communication, motor skills, or problem solving. While this is a standard way to establish that an infant is in the correct neurodevelopmental pathway, it is not a ‘hard’ measure of cellular or biochemical processes being impacted by the intervention. Some of our results suggest that there is a change in the metabolome of this infants, particularly an enrichment in GABA, a neurotransmitter, but the exact mechanisms by which the intervention is resulting in a health benefit still remains to be explored,” he said.

“We have an ongoing study here at Mount Sinai to test whether this microbial intervention can be effective in lowering the risk of developing food allergies in newborns who are at high risk, so that is another important future question: What other conditions could benefit from this approach,” said Dr. Clemente.

A third research goal, he added, is “determining what microbes precisely are responsible for the health benefits; this study uses a full microbial community to colonize infants. We show that this is effective and, importantly, that there were no significant adverse events in the treated infants,” he noted. “However, identifying what specific microbes are beneficial would further lower the risk of any potential side effects, while facilitating the development of drugs based on defined microbial consortia,” he said.
 

Safety and efficacy support further studies

“It is widely accepted that the gut microbiome of neonates varies based on mode of delivery,” Anna K. Knight, PhD, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“C-sections have been associated with increased risk of asthma and metabolic disease, and have been associated with differences in the development of the immune system,” said Dr. Knight, who was not involved in the study. “There have been small pilot studies examining the use of vaginal microbiome transplants to shift the gut microbiome of neonates born by C-section to be more like the gut microbiome of neonates born via vaginal delivery, but the safety and efficacy of this treatment has not been well established. This study examines both, while also evaluating potential changes in the metabolome and neurodevelopmental trajectories.”

The current study confirmed the impact of the neonatal gut microbe on neurodevelopmental outcomes during a sensitive period, said Dr. Knight. “The fact that these differences persisted at 6 months suggests that even if the microbiome composition between vaginally-delivered and preterm infants converged at 1-2 years old, there may be lasting impacts of mode of delivery,” she said.

“The results of this study suggest that vaginal microbiome transplant may be a safe and effective way to mitigate the negative impacts of C-section delivery on the neonatal gut microbiome, and may be protective for neurodevelopment,” she added.

Regarding the Frontiers in Medicine study, Dr. Knight noted that it examined a very different population, with Zhou and colleagues focusing on Chinese infants, while Dos Santos and colleagues focused on Canadian infants.

“There was also a substantial difference in sample size between the two studies, with Dos Santos and colleagues examining > 500 more infants,” she said. “Additionally, the two studies differed in the sequencing technology used, sample collection methods, and antibiotic exposure, which can all impact microbiome study results.”

Since the current study showed efficacy and safety of VMT in a small clinical trial, larger trials with more diverse participants are needed to further examine the impact of VMT, said Dr. Knight. “The risks of vaginal microbiome transplant in mothers with infections should also be considered, and the mechanisms by which the neonatal gut microbiome impacts neurodevelopment need further investigation,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University, China, and the Top Talent Program of Foshan Women and Children Hospital, China. The researchers and Dr. Knight had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many physicians and hospitals in the states that have restricted abortion reportedly are refusing to end the pregnancies of women facing health-threatening complications out of fear they might face criminal prosecution or loss of their medical license.

Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.

“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”

To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.

“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”

Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.

“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.

A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.

Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.

The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.

Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”

News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.

Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.

“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”

He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.

“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.

Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.

“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.

She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”

Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.

“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”

An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.

Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.

Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.

Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.

Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.

“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.

Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.

“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.

Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.

Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.

Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.

“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”

She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.

But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.

“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many physicians and hospitals in the states that have restricted abortion reportedly are refusing to end the pregnancies of women facing health-threatening complications out of fear they might face criminal prosecution or loss of their medical license.

Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.

“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”

To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.

“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”

Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.

“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.

A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.

Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.

The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.

Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”

News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.

Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.

“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”

He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.

“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.

Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.

“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.

She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”

Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.

“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”

An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.

Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.

Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.

Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.

Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.

“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.

Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.

“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.

Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.

Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.

Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.

“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”

She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.

But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.

“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many physicians and hospitals in the states that have restricted abortion reportedly are refusing to end the pregnancies of women facing health-threatening complications out of fear they might face criminal prosecution or loss of their medical license.

Some experts predict those providers could soon face a new legal threat: medical malpractice lawsuits alleging they harmed patients by failing to provide timely, necessary abortion care.

“We will absolutely see medical malpractice cases emerge,” said Diana Nordlund, an emergency physician in Grand Rapids, Mich., and former malpractice defense attorney, who chairs the Medical-Legal Committee of the American College of Emergency Physicians. When physicians decide not to provide treatments widely accepted as the standard of care because of these new laws, “that’s perceived as substandard care and there is increased civil liability.”

To some physicians and malpractice attorneys, the question is when – not if – a pregnant patient will die from lack of care and set the stage for a big-dollar wrongful death claim. Abortion rights supporters said such a case could pressure doctors and hospitals to provide appropriate abortion care, counterbalancing their fears of running afoul of state abortion bans, many of which call for criminal prosecution and revocation of medical licenses as punishment for violations.

“If we want to encourage proper care, there has to be some sort of counter-risk to physicians and hospitals for refusing to provide care that should be legal,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh school of law who studies the impact of abortion bans. “But most rational people would be more afraid of going to jail.”

Some supporters of abortion bans said they would welcome malpractice lawsuits. Providers are refusing to use the exceptions in some state laws that allow them to perform abortions to save a patient’s life or health, they said.

“It could help achieve our goal if it clarifies that the law did not contradict standard medical practice,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, referring to the state’s abortion ban.

A new KFF poll found that 59% of ob.gyns. practicing in states with gestational limits on abortion, and 61% of those in states with bans, are somewhat or very concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about the necessity of an abortion.

Some attorneys are exploring lawsuits on behalf of women who they said have been harmed by a state abortion ban. An attorney for Mylissa Farmer, a Missouri woman who was refused an abortion at two hospitals in August after her water broke about 18 weeks into her pregnancy, said she may sue for malpractice. Missouri’s abortion ban, which took effect last year, makes an exception for medical emergencies.

The federal government recently found that the two hospitals violated a federal emergency care law in denying Ms. Farmer an abortion, which experts said could strengthen a malpractice claim. One of the hospitals, Freeman Health System in Joplin, Mo., did not respond to a request for comment. The other, the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, said the care provided “was reviewed by the hospital and found to be in accordance with hospital policy,” according to a spokesperson, Jill Chadwick.

Ms. Farmer “experienced permanent physical and emotional damage,” said Michelle Banker, one of her lawyers at the National Women’s Law Center, who added that Ms. Farmer and her attorneys are “considering all our legal options.”

News reports and medical studies show that some women with pregnancy complications have suffered serious health consequences when doctors and hospitals did not provide once-routine abortion care.

Last month, researchers released a study identifying dozens of cases in 14 states in which physicians said deficiencies in care due to abortion restrictions led to preventable complications and hospitalizations, with some patients nearly dying.

“The patients were sent home and told to come back when they had signs of infection,” said Daniel Grossman, an ob.gyn. at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study. “Many developed serious infections. And it’s clear many of these cases were very emotionally traumatic.”

He said though the researchers did not track patient outcomes, the lack of timely abortion care in such cases could result in severe health harms including loss of fertility, stroke, or heart attack.

“It’s just a matter of time before there will be a death that comes to light,” Dr. Grossman said.

Still, considering the conflict for doctors between medical ethics and personal risk, some stakeholders said patients may be reluctant to sue doctors and juries may balk at finding them liable.

“It’s a terrible position that providers are being put into, and I don’t think juries will blame the doctor unless it’s a super clear case,” said Morgan Murphy, a malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Missouri.

She said her firm will not pursue malpractice cases based on abortion denials except in “pretty extreme” situations, such as when a patient dies. “Unless a mother is on her deathbed, it’s pretty hard to fault a provider who thinks if they provide treatment they’re going to be criminally liable or will lose their medical license.”

Another hurdle for malpractice cases is that state abortion bans could undermine the argument that abortion is the legal “standard of care,” meaning that it is a widely accepted and prescribed treatment for pregnancy complications such as miscarriage and for fatal fetal abnormalities.

“I absolutely see a breach of the standard of care in these cases,” said Maria A. Phillis, an ob.gyn. and former lawyer in Cleveland. “But if someone goes to trial in a malpractice case, it will come down to a battle of medical experts about whether it’s no longer the standard of care, and the jury would have to decide.”

An additional justification for physicians not to provide abortions is that medical liability insurers generally do not cover damages from criminal acts, which “puts the finger on the scales even more to not do anything,” Dr. Phillis said.

Stuart Grossman, a prominent malpractice plaintiff’s attorney in Florida, said he would be eager to take an abortion-denial case in which the woman suffered serious health or emotional injuries.

Unlike other states with abortion bans, Florida does not cap damage amounts for pain and suffering in malpractice cases, making it more financially viable to sue there.

Mr. Grossman cited the case of Deborah Dorbert, a Florida woman who reportedly was denied an abortion despite being told by her physicians at 24 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus, with no kidneys and underdeveloped lungs, had a fatal condition called Potter syndrome.

Her doctors and the hospital refused to end the pregnancy even though the state’s abortion ban has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Months later, her baby died in his parents’ arms shortly after birth.

“You can see how she’s been devastated mentally,” Mr. Grossman said. “She has a wrongful death case that I’d take in a minute.” He said the couple could file a malpractice suit for Ms. Dorbert’s physical and emotional damages and a separate malpractice and wrongful death suit for the couple’s suffering over the infant’s death.

Failing to counsel patients about their options and connect them with providers willing to terminate a pregnancy is also possible grounds for a malpractice suit, attorneys said. Katie Watson, an associate professor at Northwestern University, Chicago’s school of medicine who has studied state abortion bans, said counseling and referral are not prohibited under these laws and that physicians have an ethical obligation to offer those services.

“I think breaching the obligation for counseling would make a strong malpractice lawsuit,” she said.

Nancy Davis said she received no counseling or referral assistance last July after her doctors at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., told her 10 weeks into her pregnancy that her fetus would not survive because it was missing the top of its skull, a fatal condition called acrania. She said they recommended that she terminate the pregnancy and she agreed.

Ms. Davis said her doctors then told her a hospital executive had denied permission for the procedure because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, even though the law has an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment.

Ms. Davis, who has three children, contacted Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, which arranged for child care and a flight to New York. She had an abortion performed there in September.

“The whole situation has been mentally and physically draining, and my family and I are receiving counseling,” Ms. Davis said. “I’m still very angry at the hospital and the doctors. I feel like I’m owed compensation for the trauma and the heartbreak.”

She sought the counsel of Benjamin Crump, a prominent attorney known for pursuing high-profile cases like wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of the families of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.

But Mr. Crump said that after studying Ms. Davis’ legal options, he decided a judge would likely dismiss a malpractice suit and that Ms. Davis could end up paying the defendants’ legal fees and costs.

“The doctor’s lawyers will say, ‘You can’t expect my client to break the law and go to prison for up to 25 years,’ ” Mr. Crump said. “Unless you change the law, there is no option for her to receive compensation.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A family history of breast cancer does not necessarily mean that women who have the disease are more likely to die from it.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed 28,649 Swedish women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1991 to 2019.
• Overall, 5,081 patients (17.7%) had at least one female first-degree relative previously diagnosed with breast cancer.

TAKEAWAYS:

• After adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments, a family history of breast cancer was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer–specific death in the full cohort (hazard ratio, 0.78) and in ER-negative women (HR, 0.57) within 5 years of diagnosis, after which point the association was no longer significant.
• The lower risk of death among women with a family history could mean that these women are more motivated and likely to get screened, potentially catching tumors earlier, and may be more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations.
• However, having a family history of early-onset breast cancer (before the age of 40) was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer–specific death (HR, 1.41).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the findings are reassuring for many women with breast cancer, “genetic testing of newly diagnosed patients with early-onset family history may provide useful information to aid treatment and future research,” the researchers concluded.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Yuqi Zhang, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The main analysis did not include tumor characteristics only available within the last 20 years, including ERBB2 status.
• Relatively wide confidence intervals make the association between a family history of early-onset breast cancer and higher risk of breast cancer death somewhat uncertain.

DISCLOSURES:

• The work was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.
• The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial has provided more evidence that acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine (Diclegis/Diclectin) are modestly effective for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). While the benefit of either agent was clinically small for moderate to severe symptoms, the combination showed numerically larger and potentially more meaningful benefit, according to a team led by Xiao-Ke Wu, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at First Affiliated Hospital, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, and Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital in Harbin, China.

The treatments found small reductions in symptoms of less than one point to 1.6 points on an emesis scale. Nevertheless, Dr. Wu’s group wrote online June 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine that the finding “is especially significant because there is a pressing need to establish a pregnancy-safe treatment regimen and an integrative guideline for managing severe NVP.”

NVP affects as many as 85% of pregnant women, 80%-90% of whom have only mild symptoms, the authors noted. However, severe NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, or HG, develop in about 10%. “Unfortunately, as many as 10% of wanted pregnancies with severe NVP or HG are terminated because of intolerable and untreatable symptoms and complications,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. And antiemetics may be underprescribed by general practitioners because of concerns about potential teratogenic effects, he said.

“Our findings suggest that either acupuncture or doxylamine-pyridoxine alone is a suitable for treating moderate to severe NVP, and a combination of both can be used to treat severe NVP and HG,” Dr. Wu said.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Catherine S. Stika, MD, a clinical professor of ob.gyn. at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the results suggest these two therapies are more suited to mild than severe symptoms. “But an RCT is important to do in order to support the use of these therapies since they’re not as widely accepted as they ought to be,” she said in an interview.

Design

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled 2x2 factorial trial was conducted at 13 tertiary-care hospitals in mainland China from June 2020 to February 2022. The researchers recruited 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. The mean age of participants was about 29 years and the mean gestational age was about 9 weeks.

Participants were randomized into four 14-day treatment groups: active acupuncture for 30 minutes a day plus the antihistamine-vitamin B6 agent doxylamine-pyridoxine; sham acupuncture for 30 minutes daily plus doxylamine-pyridoxine; active acupuncture plus placebo; and sham acupuncture plus placebo.

The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at day 15 relative to baseline with a score of less than 6 indicating mild NVP, 6-12 indicating moderate NVP, and 13 or higher indicating severe NVP. Secondary outcomes ranged from quality of life and adverse events to maternal and perinatal complications. Acupuncture and combined treatment yielded larger though still small reductions in PUQE score, compared with control treatments. The mean differences were as follows: acupuncture, –.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-0.1); doxylamine-pyridoxine, –1.0: 95% CI, 1.6-0.4); combination of both, –1.6; 95% CI, 2.2-0.9). No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = .69).Compared with placebo treatments, pharmaceutical therapy resulted in more somnolence, while active acupuncture led to more frequent dyspnea, bruising, itching, and pain. A higher risk of babies born small for gestational age was observed in mothers who took doxylamine-pyridoxine versus placebo: odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 1-14.1). Neither the placebo effects of the sham interventions nor the natural regression of symptoms experienced by many women were evaluated.
 

Suited to milder symptoms?

Dr. Stika called the study well-designed and well-written but cited several limitations, including the small cohort, the minor symptom improvement, and the lack of a comparator group receiving neither sham nor active treatment.

“Compared with sham combination treatments, the active combination arm was only about a point and a half better,” she said. “And would some women have got better over the 2 weeks anyway with no intervention at all? A large percentage of women with NVP do improve on their own.”

And in terms of acceptability to U.S. women, she cautioned, “The study cohort was entirely Chinese, and this is a population that already accepts acupuncture treatment.”

Countered Dr. Wu, “Medical care provided by licensed acupuncturists is approved in many countries. Certainly, it is ready to be prescribed by physicians when a pregnant patient is seeking NVP treatment.”

Dr. Stika stressed that these therapies are suited to milder NV, and would “barely take edge off severe symptoms,” for which a patient might have to “go up to a big gun like the antiemetic Zofran” (ondansetron). She is currently involved in a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial of the antidepressant mirtazapine (Remeron) for NVP.

Matthew Carroll, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, noted that doxylamine-pyridoxine is already an effective treatment for NVP, but in his experience it is often "not enough" to help patients deal with symptoms.

"Many patients are hesitant to take additional medications," he said. "If acupuncture can be safely done in pregnancy, then it seems a reasonable option as an adjuvant treatment for NVP. I think there is a cohort of pregnant people in the US who would be excited to try a complementary and nonpharmaceutical treatment option. Unfortunately, complementary therapies are rarely evaluated at a systems level for safety and so they are hard to recommend for obstetricians in the US," he added.

Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study. noted that "studies like this can help us counsel patients who may be seeking these treatments even if not approved or recommended by ACOG."

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province “TouYan” Innovation Team. Support also came from the National Clinical Research Base of Chinese Medicine, the Heilongjiang Provincial Clinical Research Centre for Ovary Diseases, and the 2023 Capability Improvement Project for Evidence-based Assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Study coauthor Ben Willem J. Mol, MD, PhD, reported consulting fees from ObsEva and Merck and travel fees from Merck.

Dr. Stika and Dr. Carroll had no competing interests to disclose.

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I am Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia and a North American Menopause  Society–credentialed menopause specialist.

I am excited to tell you about a brand-new, just-approved non-estrogen therapy for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Fezolinetant (brand name, Veozah), a 45-mg oral daily therapy, is the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration to treat vasomotor symptoms, including hot flashes and night sweats, due to menopause. The manufacturer, Astellas, is expected to make fezolinetant available at pharmacies before the end of this year. This medication binds to and blocks the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, leading to a reduction in hot flashes.

University of Virginia Health System

For women suffering from frequent moderate to severe hot flashes, fezolinetant is an exciting breakthrough in women’s health as it is a highly effective nonhormonal treatment that reduces hot flashes and improves quality of life.

In two phase 3 clinical trials (Johnson et al. and Lederman et al.), fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by about 65%, significantly more than placebo, and similar to the 75% reduction seen with hormone therapy. Fezolinetant’s efficacy becomes evident within 1 week, reducing both frequency and severity of hot flashes.

With respect to side effects, 1%-2% of the menopausal women participating in clinical trials reported adverse events, including headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flushes, and reversible elevated hepatic transaminases. Serious adverse events were infrequent.

Subgroup analysis of data presented at ACOG’s 2023 annual meeting noted fezolinetant’s effectiveness among diverse populations, including White or Black race, body mass index of 30 or higher, those younger or older than age 55, smokers, former smokers, and never smokers, in U.S. as well as in European trial participants.

With respect to safety, a 52-week placebo-controlled safety trial confirmed safety for this time period. Adverse effects on the endometrium were neither seen nor expected, as fezolinetant is a centrally acting non–estrogen-containing medication. In addition, no loss of bone density was seen.

Prior trials of neurokinin receptor antagonists suggested the potential for hepatotoxicity. Increases in ALT or AST noted in one of the phase 3 trials of fezolinetant were described as asymptomatic, isolated, intermittent, or transient and returned to baseline during treatment or after discontinuation. However, the FDA placed a warning about liver injury potential. Package labeling recommends baseline liver function tests before starting fezolinetant and at 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, concomitant use of moderate CYP1A2 inhibitors, including many antidepressants and cimetidine, should be avoided.

As with other recently approved medications, I am concerned that high cost could prevent appropriate candidates from having access.

Until now, the FDA had approved only one nonhormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 7.5 mg paroxetine salt. However, neither this formulation nor off-label use of other SSRIs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, oxybutynin, or clonidine are as effective as hormone therapy or fezolinetant for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms.

For women with bothersome menopausal hot flashes who can’t or choose not to use hormone therapy, including those with estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancers, fezolinetant offers a much-needed, highly effective, safe, nonhormone/non-estrogen option to treat their hot flashes.

The FDA approved it for treating vasomotor symptoms of menopause (hot flashes and night sweats) but it also appears to improve sleep disruption, mood, and quality of life.

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