Women's Health

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

New Screening Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Screening Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Screening Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

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

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

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

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

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

 

Limitations of Current Studies

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

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

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

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

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

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

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

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

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

 

Limitations of Current Studies

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

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

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

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

 

Benefits and Risks in Bone Loss Studies

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

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

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

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

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

 

Limitations of Current Studies

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

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

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

 

Too Soon to Prescribe Vitamin E for Bone Health

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS: 

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS: 

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS: 

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.