SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

SAN DIEGO — Immunotherapies directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have significantly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, but their addition to the therapeutic arsenal comes at a high cost in terms of systemic and neurologic side effects which vary from one agent to the next, a new analysis of data from the FDA shows.

Among 1803 patients with multiple myeloma treated with either chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs or a bispecific antibody, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with a “prominent” risk for both cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, while the antibody was associated with a high risk for infection-related mortality, reported Zimu Gong, MD, PhD, from the Cancer Center at Houston Methodist Hospital.“When we are selecting or sequencing these agents, because they are approved for almost identical indications, we need to carefully consider their unique toxicity profile,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) here. 

Going to the FAERS

Dr. Gong and colleagues drew on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for data on toxicities associated with three BCMA-directed therapies: CAR T-cell treatments idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti), and the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli). 

They identified a total of 1803 cases with a total of 4423 reported adverse events.

The authors calculated a reporting odds ratio (ROR) by dividing the odds of a specific event occurring with an agent by the odds of the same event occurring with all other BCMA-directed agents in the FAERS database. 

They found that the highest ROR for cytokine release syndrome was with ide-cel, at 1.8, compared with 0.74 with cilta-cel, and 0.63 with teclistamab. Ide-cel was also most strongly associated with risk for both immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, with an ROR of 1.38, compared with 1.04 with cilta-cel and 0.69 with teclistamab, and with non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity, with an ROR of 2.19 vs 0.83 and 0.4, respectively.

There were 14 reported cases of Bell’s palsy, 13 of which were associated with cilta-cel and 1 with teclistamab, and 11 cases of Parkinsonism, including 7 occurring with cilta-cel, 4 with ide-cel, and none with teclistamab. 

In contrast, risk for infection was highest with teclistamab, with an ROR of 4.38 compared with 1.3 with cilta-cel and 0.12 with ide-cel. The infections most commonly reported with teclistamab included pneumonia, sepsis, COVID-19 pneumonia, pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus reactive and cytomegalovirus pneumonia.

The antibody was also associated with the highest risk for nonrelapse mortality, with an ROR of 1.73 compared with 1.28 with cilta-cel and 0.13 with ide-cel.

There were 309 reported deaths. The investigators calculated nonrelapse mortality by excluding disease progress from cases with death as the final reported outcome. Ide-cell had the lowest odds ratio for non-relapse mortality, at 0.53, compared with 0.99 for cilta-cel, and 1.72 for teclistamab. The most common cause of nonrelapse deaths was toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, and infections, Dr. Gong said.

Dr. Gong acknowledged that one of the major limitations of the study is the nature of the FAERS database itself, which includes both mandatory reports on adverse events, medication errors, and product quality complaints submitted as required by law by manufacturers, but also voluntarily reported by healthcare professionals and consumers. 

In an interview with this news organization, David Miklos, MD, PhD, chief of the blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy division at Stanford University, who attended the session but was not involved in the study, commented that although the study showed differences among various anti-BCMA products in terms of adverse events, the analysis is only one of several that show different values.

“The concern I have about the FAERS database is simply the lack of validation, and maybe, with no disrespect to the institution, this is kind of like review scores on Amazon.com: not validated, nobody knows who put them out there, and we don’t even know if it’s true,” he said.

He noted that whatever the system, data collection and reporting is both time- and resource-consuming, and given the potential of cellular therapies to significantly improve survival may burden clinicians with requirements for decades of follow-up and reporting.

“Self-reporting isn’t the answer either,” said Dr. Miklos. Perhaps, he suggested, there is a role for apps with “patients self-reporting” and medical practitioners validating the reports. 

Dr. Gong and colleagues did not report a study funding source. Dr. Gong had no conflict of interest disclosures. Dr. Miklos has disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen; received research funding from: Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclic; patents, royalties, or other intellectual property from Pharmacyclics, and travel support from Kite-Gilead, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adaptive Biotech, Pharmacyclics, and Janssen.

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

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with severe acne were considered less attractive, less worthy of friendship, and less likely to be hired for a job, compared with those who did not have acne, based on survey responses from more than 1300 individuals.

JAMA Network, 2023 American Medical Association

Self-stigma among people with acne has been examined in previous studies; however, “little is known about the prevalence and magnitude of stigmatizing attitudes of the general public toward individuals with acne,” wrote Ali Shields of Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and her coauthors.

In the study, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, they reviewed survey data from 1357 adults aged 18 years and older who were identified through an online national research registry (ResearchMatch). The mean age of the participants was 42.4 years range). 67.7% were female.

Participants were randomly shown 1 of 12 standardized portraits of individuals that varied in skin tone, sex, and acne severity. They responded to questions about stigmatizing attitudes with respect to the portrait, including stereotype endorsement and desire for social distance.

With regard to social distance, survey participants were significantly less comfortable being friends with people with severe acne, compared with those who did not have acne (adjusted coefficient [aC], -0.28, P = .003). Compared with people without acne, participants also reported significantly less comfort in hiring someone with severe acne (aC, -0.33; P < .001), having physical contact (aC, -0.26; P = .006), dating (aC, -0.44; P = .004), and posting photos with that person on social media (aC, -0.50; P < .001).

With regard to common acne stereotypes, survey participants also rated individuals with severe acne as significantly more likely than those without acne to have poor hygiene and to be unattractive, unintelligent, unlikeable, immature, and untrustworthy (aCs, -1.04, -0.89, -0.42, -0.36, -0.52, and -0.40, respectively; P < .001 for all).

In a linear regression analysis, the researchers found no evidence of association modification by sex of the portraits presented, but found evidence that “the effect size of association of acne with stereotype endorsement was greater for individuals with dark skin.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential differences in degree of severity between images after the addition of acne because the baseline images were not exact controls for each other: Therefore comparisons between image sets based on skin tone or sex should be interpreted cautiously, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the homogeneous population of survey respondents and the inability to account for all aspects of stigma, they said.

However, the results illustrate the persistent stigma associated with acne and “highlight the need to identify approaches to reduce stigmatizing attitudes in the community and for adequate access to care, which might prevent negative downstream effects related to these stigmatizing attitudes,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases to corresponding author John S. Barbieri, MD. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, disclosed personal fees from hims & hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fig.1 Beauty, Acom Healthcare, and Olaplex outside the current study. Dr. Barbieri disclosed personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the current study.

Individuals with severe acne were considered less attractive, less worthy of friendship, and less likely to be hired for a job, compared with those who did not have acne, based on survey responses from more than 1300 individuals.

JAMA Network, 2023 American Medical Association

Self-stigma among people with acne has been examined in previous studies; however, “little is known about the prevalence and magnitude of stigmatizing attitudes of the general public toward individuals with acne,” wrote Ali Shields of Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and her coauthors.

In the study, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, they reviewed survey data from 1357 adults aged 18 years and older who were identified through an online national research registry (ResearchMatch). The mean age of the participants was 42.4 years range). 67.7% were female.

Participants were randomly shown 1 of 12 standardized portraits of individuals that varied in skin tone, sex, and acne severity. They responded to questions about stigmatizing attitudes with respect to the portrait, including stereotype endorsement and desire for social distance.

With regard to social distance, survey participants were significantly less comfortable being friends with people with severe acne, compared with those who did not have acne (adjusted coefficient [aC], -0.28, P = .003). Compared with people without acne, participants also reported significantly less comfort in hiring someone with severe acne (aC, -0.33; P < .001), having physical contact (aC, -0.26; P = .006), dating (aC, -0.44; P = .004), and posting photos with that person on social media (aC, -0.50; P < .001).

With regard to common acne stereotypes, survey participants also rated individuals with severe acne as significantly more likely than those without acne to have poor hygiene and to be unattractive, unintelligent, unlikeable, immature, and untrustworthy (aCs, -1.04, -0.89, -0.42, -0.36, -0.52, and -0.40, respectively; P < .001 for all).

In a linear regression analysis, the researchers found no evidence of association modification by sex of the portraits presented, but found evidence that “the effect size of association of acne with stereotype endorsement was greater for individuals with dark skin.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential differences in degree of severity between images after the addition of acne because the baseline images were not exact controls for each other: Therefore comparisons between image sets based on skin tone or sex should be interpreted cautiously, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the homogeneous population of survey respondents and the inability to account for all aspects of stigma, they said.

However, the results illustrate the persistent stigma associated with acne and “highlight the need to identify approaches to reduce stigmatizing attitudes in the community and for adequate access to care, which might prevent negative downstream effects related to these stigmatizing attitudes,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases to corresponding author John S. Barbieri, MD. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, disclosed personal fees from hims & hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fig.1 Beauty, Acom Healthcare, and Olaplex outside the current study. Dr. Barbieri disclosed personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the current study.

Individuals with severe acne were considered less attractive, less worthy of friendship, and less likely to be hired for a job, compared with those who did not have acne, based on survey responses from more than 1300 individuals.

JAMA Network, 2023 American Medical Association

Self-stigma among people with acne has been examined in previous studies; however, “little is known about the prevalence and magnitude of stigmatizing attitudes of the general public toward individuals with acne,” wrote Ali Shields of Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and her coauthors.

In the study, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, they reviewed survey data from 1357 adults aged 18 years and older who were identified through an online national research registry (ResearchMatch). The mean age of the participants was 42.4 years range). 67.7% were female.

Participants were randomly shown 1 of 12 standardized portraits of individuals that varied in skin tone, sex, and acne severity. They responded to questions about stigmatizing attitudes with respect to the portrait, including stereotype endorsement and desire for social distance.

With regard to social distance, survey participants were significantly less comfortable being friends with people with severe acne, compared with those who did not have acne (adjusted coefficient [aC], -0.28, P = .003). Compared with people without acne, participants also reported significantly less comfort in hiring someone with severe acne (aC, -0.33; P < .001), having physical contact (aC, -0.26; P = .006), dating (aC, -0.44; P = .004), and posting photos with that person on social media (aC, -0.50; P < .001).

With regard to common acne stereotypes, survey participants also rated individuals with severe acne as significantly more likely than those without acne to have poor hygiene and to be unattractive, unintelligent, unlikeable, immature, and untrustworthy (aCs, -1.04, -0.89, -0.42, -0.36, -0.52, and -0.40, respectively; P < .001 for all).

In a linear regression analysis, the researchers found no evidence of association modification by sex of the portraits presented, but found evidence that “the effect size of association of acne with stereotype endorsement was greater for individuals with dark skin.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential differences in degree of severity between images after the addition of acne because the baseline images were not exact controls for each other: Therefore comparisons between image sets based on skin tone or sex should be interpreted cautiously, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the homogeneous population of survey respondents and the inability to account for all aspects of stigma, they said.

However, the results illustrate the persistent stigma associated with acne and “highlight the need to identify approaches to reduce stigmatizing attitudes in the community and for adequate access to care, which might prevent negative downstream effects related to these stigmatizing attitudes,” the authors concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases to corresponding author John S. Barbieri, MD. Coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, disclosed personal fees from hims & hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fig.1 Beauty, Acom Healthcare, and Olaplex outside the current study. Dr. Barbieri disclosed personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the current study.

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

In the United States, opioid use by patients who are pregnant more than quadrupled from 1999 to 2014.¹ Opioid use disorder (OUD) in the perinatal period is associated with a higher risk for depression, suicide, malnutrition, domestic violence, and obstetric complications such as spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, and premature delivery.² Buprenorphine and methadone are the standard of care for treating OUD in pregnancy.^3,4 While a literature review found that maternal treatment with buprenorphine has comparable efficacy to treatment with methadone,⁵ a small randomized, double-blind study found that compared to buprenorphine, methadone was associated with significantly lower use of additional opioids (P = .047).⁶ This suggests methadone has therapeutic value for patients who are pregnant.

Despite the benefits of methadone for treating perinatal OUD, the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Patients typically take methadone once a day, and the dose is titrated every 3 to 5 days to allow serum levels to reach steady state.⁷ During pregnancy, there are increases in both the volume of distribution and medication metabolism secondary to increased expression of the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme by the liver, intestine, and placenta.⁸ Additionally, as the pregnancy progresses, the rate of methadone metabolism increases.⁹ Methadone’s half-life (20 to 35 hours) leads to its accumulation in tissue and slow release into the blood.¹⁰ As a result, patients with OUD who are pregnant often require higher doses of methadone or divided dosing, particularly in the second and third trimesters.¹¹

In this article, we provide a strategy for divided dosing of methadone for managing opioid withdrawal symptoms in the acute care setting. We present 2 cases of women with OUD who are pregnant and describe the collaboration of addiction medicine, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and obstetrics services.

CASE 1

Ms. H, age 29, is G3P2 and presents to the emergency department (ED) during her fourth pregnancy at 31 weeks, 1 day gestation. She has a history of opioid, cocaine, and benzodiazepine use disorders and chronic hepatitis C. Ms. H is enrolled in an opioid treatment program and takes methadone 190 mg/d in addition to nonprescribed opioids. In the ED, Ms. H requests medically supervised withdrawal management. Her urine toxicology is positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, methadone, and opiates. Her laboratory results and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable. On admission, Ms. H’s Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score is 3, indicating minimal symptoms (5 to 12: mild; 13 to 24: moderate; 25 to 36: moderately severe; >36: severe). Fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. H’s withdrawal is monitored with COWS every 4 hours. The treatment team initiates methadone 170 mg/d, with an additional 10 mg/d as needed to keep her COWS score <8, and daily QTc monitoring. Ms. H also receives lorazepam 2 to 4 mg/d as needed for benzodiazepine withdrawal. Despite the increase in her daily methadone dose, Ms. H continues to experience opioid withdrawal in the early evening and overnight. As a result, the treatment team increases Ms. H’s morning methadone dose to 190 mg and schedules an afternoon dose of 30 mg. Despite this adjustment, her COWS scores remain elevated in the afternoon and evening, and she requires additional as-needed doses of methadone. Methadone peak and trough levels are ordered to assess for rapid metabolism. The serum trough level is 190 ng/mL, which is low, and a serum peak level is not reported. Despite titration, Ms. H has a self-directed premature discharge.

Five days later at 32 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H is readmitted after she had resumed use of opioids, benzodiazepines, and cocaine. Her vital signs are stable, and her laboratory results and ECG are unremarkable. Fetal monitoring is reassuring. Given Ms. H’s low methadone serum trough level and overall concern for rapid methadone metabolism, the treatment team decides to divide dosing of methadone. Over 9 days, the team titrates methadone to 170 mg twice daily on the day of discharge, which resolves Ms. H’s withdrawal symptoms.

At 38 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. H returns to the ED after experiencing labor contractions and opiate withdrawal symptoms after she resumed use of heroin, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. During this admission, Ms. H’s methadone is increased to 180 mg twice daily with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. At 39 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H has a scheduled cesarean delivery.

Her infant has a normal weight but is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for management of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) and receives morphine. The baby remains in the NICU for 35 days and is discharged home without further treatment. When Ms. H is discharged, her methadone dose is 170 mg twice daily, which resolves her opioid withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team directs her to continue care in her methadone outpatient program and receive treatment for her cocaine and benzodiazepine use disorders. She declines residential or inpatient substance use treatment.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. M, age 39, is G4P2 and presents to the hospital during her fifth pregnancy at 27 weeks gestation. She has not received prenatal care for this pregnancy. She has a history of OUD and major depressive disorder (MDD). Ms. M’s urine toxicology is positive for opiates, fentanyl, and oxycodone. Her laboratory results are notable for mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase, positive hepatitis C antibody, and a hepatitis C viral load of 91,000, consistent with chronic hepatitis C infection. On admission, her COWS score is 14, indicating moderate withdrawal symptoms. Her ECG is unremarkable, and fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. M had received methadone during a prior pregnancy and opts to reinitiate treatment with methadone during her current admission. The team initiates methadone 20 mg/d with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. Due to a persistently elevated COWS score, Ms. M’s methadone is increased to 90 mg/d, which resolves her withdrawal symptoms. However, on Day 4, Ms. M reports having anxiety, refuses bloodwork to obtain methadone peak and trough levels, and prematurely discharges from the hospital.

One day later at 27 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. M is readmitted for continued management of opioid withdrawal. She presents with stable vital signs, an unremarkable ECG, and reassuring fetal monitoring. Her COWS score is 5. The treatment team reinitiates methadone at 80 mg/d and titrates it to 100 mg/d on Day 7. Given Ms. M’s ongoing evening cravings and concern for rapid methadone metabolism, on Day 10 the team switches the methadone dosing to 50 mg twice daily to maintain steady-state levels and promote patient comfort. Fluoxetine 20 mg/d is started for comorbid MDD and eventually increased to 80 mg/d. Ms. M is discharged on Day 15 with a regimen of methadone 60 mg/d in the morning and 70 mg/d at night. She plans to resume care in an opioid treatment program and follow up with psychiatry and hepatology for her anxiety and hepatitis C.

A need for aggressive treatment

Given the rising rates of opioid use by patients who are pregnant, harmful behavior related to opioid use, and a wealth of evidence supporting opioid agonist treatment for OUD in pregnancy, there is a growing need for guidance in managing perinatal OUD. A systematic approach to using methadone to treat OUD in patients who are pregnant is essential; the lack of data surrounding use of this medication in such patients may cause overall harm.¹² Limited guidelines and a lack of familiarity with prescribing methadone to patients who are pregnant may lead clinicians to underdose patients, which can result in ongoing withdrawal, premature patient-directed discharges, and poor engagement in care.¹³ Both patients in the 2 cases described in this article experienced ongoing withdrawal symptoms despite daily titration of methadone. This suggests rapid metabolism, which was successfully managed by dividing the dosing of methadone, particularly in the latter trimesters.

These cases illustrate the need for aggressive perinatal opioid withdrawal management through rapid escalation of divided doses of methadone in a monitored acute care setting. Because methadone elimination is more rapid and clearance rates increase during the perinatal period, divided methadone dosing allows for sustained plasma methadone concentrations and improved outpatient treatment adherence.^9,14,15

Continue to: Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

In both cases, the patients discharged from the hospital prematurely, likely related to incomplete management of their opioid withdrawal or other withdrawal syndromes (both patients had multiple substance use disorders [SUDs]). Compared to patients without an SUD, patients with SUDs are 3 times more likely to have a self-directed discharge.¹⁶ Patients report leaving the hospital prematurely due to undertreated withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, discrimination by staff, and hospital restrictions.¹⁶ Recommendations to decrease the rates of premature patient-directed discharges in this population include providing patient-centered and harm reduction–oriented care in addition to adequate management of pain and withdrawal.¹⁷

Impact of methadone on fetal outcomes

Approximately 55% to 94% of infants born to patients who are opioid-dependent will develop NOWS. However, there is no relationship between this syndrome and therapeutic doses of methadone.¹⁸ Moreover, long-term research has found that after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, methadone treatment during pregnancy does not have an adverse effect on postnatal development. Divided dosing in maternal methadone administration is also shown to have less of an impact on fetal neurobehavior and NOWS.¹⁹

Our recommendations for methadone treatment for perinatal patients are outlined in the Table. Aggressive treatment of opioid withdrawal in the hospital can promote treatment engagement and prevent premature discharges. Clinicians should assess for other withdrawal syndromes when a patient has multiple SUDs and collaborate with an interdisciplinary team to improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients who are pregnant is increasing. Methadone is an option for treating perinatal OUD, but the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Using divided doses of methadone can ensure the comfort and safety of the patient and their baby and improve adherence and outcomes.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/cp.0305
• Townsel C, Irani S, Buis C, et al. Partnering for the future clinic: a multidisciplinary perinatal substance use program. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023;85:220-228. doi:10.1016/j. genhosppsych.2023.10.009

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Buprenex, Suboxone, Zubsolv, Sublocade
Fentanyl • Abstral, Actiq
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lorazepam • Ativan
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Oxycodone • Oxycontin

In the United States, opioid use by patients who are pregnant more than quadrupled from 1999 to 2014.¹ Opioid use disorder (OUD) in the perinatal period is associated with a higher risk for depression, suicide, malnutrition, domestic violence, and obstetric complications such as spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, and premature delivery.² Buprenorphine and methadone are the standard of care for treating OUD in pregnancy.^3,4 While a literature review found that maternal treatment with buprenorphine has comparable efficacy to treatment with methadone,⁵ a small randomized, double-blind study found that compared to buprenorphine, methadone was associated with significantly lower use of additional opioids (P = .047).⁶ This suggests methadone has therapeutic value for patients who are pregnant.

Despite the benefits of methadone for treating perinatal OUD, the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Patients typically take methadone once a day, and the dose is titrated every 3 to 5 days to allow serum levels to reach steady state.⁷ During pregnancy, there are increases in both the volume of distribution and medication metabolism secondary to increased expression of the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme by the liver, intestine, and placenta.⁸ Additionally, as the pregnancy progresses, the rate of methadone metabolism increases.⁹ Methadone’s half-life (20 to 35 hours) leads to its accumulation in tissue and slow release into the blood.¹⁰ As a result, patients with OUD who are pregnant often require higher doses of methadone or divided dosing, particularly in the second and third trimesters.¹¹

In this article, we provide a strategy for divided dosing of methadone for managing opioid withdrawal symptoms in the acute care setting. We present 2 cases of women with OUD who are pregnant and describe the collaboration of addiction medicine, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and obstetrics services.

CASE 1

Ms. H, age 29, is G3P2 and presents to the emergency department (ED) during her fourth pregnancy at 31 weeks, 1 day gestation. She has a history of opioid, cocaine, and benzodiazepine use disorders and chronic hepatitis C. Ms. H is enrolled in an opioid treatment program and takes methadone 190 mg/d in addition to nonprescribed opioids. In the ED, Ms. H requests medically supervised withdrawal management. Her urine toxicology is positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, methadone, and opiates. Her laboratory results and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable. On admission, Ms. H’s Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score is 3, indicating minimal symptoms (5 to 12: mild; 13 to 24: moderate; 25 to 36: moderately severe; >36: severe). Fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. H’s withdrawal is monitored with COWS every 4 hours. The treatment team initiates methadone 170 mg/d, with an additional 10 mg/d as needed to keep her COWS score <8, and daily QTc monitoring. Ms. H also receives lorazepam 2 to 4 mg/d as needed for benzodiazepine withdrawal. Despite the increase in her daily methadone dose, Ms. H continues to experience opioid withdrawal in the early evening and overnight. As a result, the treatment team increases Ms. H’s morning methadone dose to 190 mg and schedules an afternoon dose of 30 mg. Despite this adjustment, her COWS scores remain elevated in the afternoon and evening, and she requires additional as-needed doses of methadone. Methadone peak and trough levels are ordered to assess for rapid metabolism. The serum trough level is 190 ng/mL, which is low, and a serum peak level is not reported. Despite titration, Ms. H has a self-directed premature discharge.

Five days later at 32 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H is readmitted after she had resumed use of opioids, benzodiazepines, and cocaine. Her vital signs are stable, and her laboratory results and ECG are unremarkable. Fetal monitoring is reassuring. Given Ms. H’s low methadone serum trough level and overall concern for rapid methadone metabolism, the treatment team decides to divide dosing of methadone. Over 9 days, the team titrates methadone to 170 mg twice daily on the day of discharge, which resolves Ms. H’s withdrawal symptoms.

At 38 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. H returns to the ED after experiencing labor contractions and opiate withdrawal symptoms after she resumed use of heroin, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. During this admission, Ms. H’s methadone is increased to 180 mg twice daily with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. At 39 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H has a scheduled cesarean delivery.

Her infant has a normal weight but is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for management of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) and receives morphine. The baby remains in the NICU for 35 days and is discharged home without further treatment. When Ms. H is discharged, her methadone dose is 170 mg twice daily, which resolves her opioid withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team directs her to continue care in her methadone outpatient program and receive treatment for her cocaine and benzodiazepine use disorders. She declines residential or inpatient substance use treatment.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. M, age 39, is G4P2 and presents to the hospital during her fifth pregnancy at 27 weeks gestation. She has not received prenatal care for this pregnancy. She has a history of OUD and major depressive disorder (MDD). Ms. M’s urine toxicology is positive for opiates, fentanyl, and oxycodone. Her laboratory results are notable for mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase, positive hepatitis C antibody, and a hepatitis C viral load of 91,000, consistent with chronic hepatitis C infection. On admission, her COWS score is 14, indicating moderate withdrawal symptoms. Her ECG is unremarkable, and fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. M had received methadone during a prior pregnancy and opts to reinitiate treatment with methadone during her current admission. The team initiates methadone 20 mg/d with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. Due to a persistently elevated COWS score, Ms. M’s methadone is increased to 90 mg/d, which resolves her withdrawal symptoms. However, on Day 4, Ms. M reports having anxiety, refuses bloodwork to obtain methadone peak and trough levels, and prematurely discharges from the hospital.

One day later at 27 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. M is readmitted for continued management of opioid withdrawal. She presents with stable vital signs, an unremarkable ECG, and reassuring fetal monitoring. Her COWS score is 5. The treatment team reinitiates methadone at 80 mg/d and titrates it to 100 mg/d on Day 7. Given Ms. M’s ongoing evening cravings and concern for rapid methadone metabolism, on Day 10 the team switches the methadone dosing to 50 mg twice daily to maintain steady-state levels and promote patient comfort. Fluoxetine 20 mg/d is started for comorbid MDD and eventually increased to 80 mg/d. Ms. M is discharged on Day 15 with a regimen of methadone 60 mg/d in the morning and 70 mg/d at night. She plans to resume care in an opioid treatment program and follow up with psychiatry and hepatology for her anxiety and hepatitis C.

A need for aggressive treatment

Given the rising rates of opioid use by patients who are pregnant, harmful behavior related to opioid use, and a wealth of evidence supporting opioid agonist treatment for OUD in pregnancy, there is a growing need for guidance in managing perinatal OUD. A systematic approach to using methadone to treat OUD in patients who are pregnant is essential; the lack of data surrounding use of this medication in such patients may cause overall harm.¹² Limited guidelines and a lack of familiarity with prescribing methadone to patients who are pregnant may lead clinicians to underdose patients, which can result in ongoing withdrawal, premature patient-directed discharges, and poor engagement in care.¹³ Both patients in the 2 cases described in this article experienced ongoing withdrawal symptoms despite daily titration of methadone. This suggests rapid metabolism, which was successfully managed by dividing the dosing of methadone, particularly in the latter trimesters.

These cases illustrate the need for aggressive perinatal opioid withdrawal management through rapid escalation of divided doses of methadone in a monitored acute care setting. Because methadone elimination is more rapid and clearance rates increase during the perinatal period, divided methadone dosing allows for sustained plasma methadone concentrations and improved outpatient treatment adherence.^9,14,15

Continue to: Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

In both cases, the patients discharged from the hospital prematurely, likely related to incomplete management of their opioid withdrawal or other withdrawal syndromes (both patients had multiple substance use disorders [SUDs]). Compared to patients without an SUD, patients with SUDs are 3 times more likely to have a self-directed discharge.¹⁶ Patients report leaving the hospital prematurely due to undertreated withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, discrimination by staff, and hospital restrictions.¹⁶ Recommendations to decrease the rates of premature patient-directed discharges in this population include providing patient-centered and harm reduction–oriented care in addition to adequate management of pain and withdrawal.¹⁷

Impact of methadone on fetal outcomes

Approximately 55% to 94% of infants born to patients who are opioid-dependent will develop NOWS. However, there is no relationship between this syndrome and therapeutic doses of methadone.¹⁸ Moreover, long-term research has found that after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, methadone treatment during pregnancy does not have an adverse effect on postnatal development. Divided dosing in maternal methadone administration is also shown to have less of an impact on fetal neurobehavior and NOWS.¹⁹

Our recommendations for methadone treatment for perinatal patients are outlined in the Table. Aggressive treatment of opioid withdrawal in the hospital can promote treatment engagement and prevent premature discharges. Clinicians should assess for other withdrawal syndromes when a patient has multiple SUDs and collaborate with an interdisciplinary team to improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients who are pregnant is increasing. Methadone is an option for treating perinatal OUD, but the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Using divided doses of methadone can ensure the comfort and safety of the patient and their baby and improve adherence and outcomes.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/cp.0305
• Townsel C, Irani S, Buis C, et al. Partnering for the future clinic: a multidisciplinary perinatal substance use program. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023;85:220-228. doi:10.1016/j. genhosppsych.2023.10.009

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Buprenex, Suboxone, Zubsolv, Sublocade
Fentanyl • Abstral, Actiq
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lorazepam • Ativan
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Oxycodone • Oxycontin

In the United States, opioid use by patients who are pregnant more than quadrupled from 1999 to 2014.¹ Opioid use disorder (OUD) in the perinatal period is associated with a higher risk for depression, suicide, malnutrition, domestic violence, and obstetric complications such as spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, and premature delivery.² Buprenorphine and methadone are the standard of care for treating OUD in pregnancy.^3,4 While a literature review found that maternal treatment with buprenorphine has comparable efficacy to treatment with methadone,⁵ a small randomized, double-blind study found that compared to buprenorphine, methadone was associated with significantly lower use of additional opioids (P = .047).⁶ This suggests methadone has therapeutic value for patients who are pregnant.

Despite the benefits of methadone for treating perinatal OUD, the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Patients typically take methadone once a day, and the dose is titrated every 3 to 5 days to allow serum levels to reach steady state.⁷ During pregnancy, there are increases in both the volume of distribution and medication metabolism secondary to increased expression of the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme by the liver, intestine, and placenta.⁸ Additionally, as the pregnancy progresses, the rate of methadone metabolism increases.⁹ Methadone’s half-life (20 to 35 hours) leads to its accumulation in tissue and slow release into the blood.¹⁰ As a result, patients with OUD who are pregnant often require higher doses of methadone or divided dosing, particularly in the second and third trimesters.¹¹

In this article, we provide a strategy for divided dosing of methadone for managing opioid withdrawal symptoms in the acute care setting. We present 2 cases of women with OUD who are pregnant and describe the collaboration of addiction medicine, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and obstetrics services.

CASE 1

Ms. H, age 29, is G3P2 and presents to the emergency department (ED) during her fourth pregnancy at 31 weeks, 1 day gestation. She has a history of opioid, cocaine, and benzodiazepine use disorders and chronic hepatitis C. Ms. H is enrolled in an opioid treatment program and takes methadone 190 mg/d in addition to nonprescribed opioids. In the ED, Ms. H requests medically supervised withdrawal management. Her urine toxicology is positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, methadone, and opiates. Her laboratory results and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable. On admission, Ms. H’s Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score is 3, indicating minimal symptoms (5 to 12: mild; 13 to 24: moderate; 25 to 36: moderately severe; >36: severe). Fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. H’s withdrawal is monitored with COWS every 4 hours. The treatment team initiates methadone 170 mg/d, with an additional 10 mg/d as needed to keep her COWS score <8, and daily QTc monitoring. Ms. H also receives lorazepam 2 to 4 mg/d as needed for benzodiazepine withdrawal. Despite the increase in her daily methadone dose, Ms. H continues to experience opioid withdrawal in the early evening and overnight. As a result, the treatment team increases Ms. H’s morning methadone dose to 190 mg and schedules an afternoon dose of 30 mg. Despite this adjustment, her COWS scores remain elevated in the afternoon and evening, and she requires additional as-needed doses of methadone. Methadone peak and trough levels are ordered to assess for rapid metabolism. The serum trough level is 190 ng/mL, which is low, and a serum peak level is not reported. Despite titration, Ms. H has a self-directed premature discharge.

Five days later at 32 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H is readmitted after she had resumed use of opioids, benzodiazepines, and cocaine. Her vital signs are stable, and her laboratory results and ECG are unremarkable. Fetal monitoring is reassuring. Given Ms. H’s low methadone serum trough level and overall concern for rapid methadone metabolism, the treatment team decides to divide dosing of methadone. Over 9 days, the team titrates methadone to 170 mg twice daily on the day of discharge, which resolves Ms. H’s withdrawal symptoms.

At 38 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. H returns to the ED after experiencing labor contractions and opiate withdrawal symptoms after she resumed use of heroin, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. During this admission, Ms. H’s methadone is increased to 180 mg twice daily with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. At 39 weeks, 2 days gestation, Ms. H has a scheduled cesarean delivery.

Her infant has a normal weight but is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for management of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) and receives morphine. The baby remains in the NICU for 35 days and is discharged home without further treatment. When Ms. H is discharged, her methadone dose is 170 mg twice daily, which resolves her opioid withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team directs her to continue care in her methadone outpatient program and receive treatment for her cocaine and benzodiazepine use disorders. She declines residential or inpatient substance use treatment.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. M, age 39, is G4P2 and presents to the hospital during her fifth pregnancy at 27 weeks gestation. She has not received prenatal care for this pregnancy. She has a history of OUD and major depressive disorder (MDD). Ms. M’s urine toxicology is positive for opiates, fentanyl, and oxycodone. Her laboratory results are notable for mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase, positive hepatitis C antibody, and a hepatitis C viral load of 91,000, consistent with chronic hepatitis C infection. On admission, her COWS score is 14, indicating moderate withdrawal symptoms. Her ECG is unremarkable, and fetal monitoring is reassuring.

Ms. M had received methadone during a prior pregnancy and opts to reinitiate treatment with methadone during her current admission. The team initiates methadone 20 mg/d with additional as-needed doses for ongoing withdrawal symptoms. Due to a persistently elevated COWS score, Ms. M’s methadone is increased to 90 mg/d, which resolves her withdrawal symptoms. However, on Day 4, Ms. M reports having anxiety, refuses bloodwork to obtain methadone peak and trough levels, and prematurely discharges from the hospital.

One day later at 27 weeks, 5 days gestation, Ms. M is readmitted for continued management of opioid withdrawal. She presents with stable vital signs, an unremarkable ECG, and reassuring fetal monitoring. Her COWS score is 5. The treatment team reinitiates methadone at 80 mg/d and titrates it to 100 mg/d on Day 7. Given Ms. M’s ongoing evening cravings and concern for rapid methadone metabolism, on Day 10 the team switches the methadone dosing to 50 mg twice daily to maintain steady-state levels and promote patient comfort. Fluoxetine 20 mg/d is started for comorbid MDD and eventually increased to 80 mg/d. Ms. M is discharged on Day 15 with a regimen of methadone 60 mg/d in the morning and 70 mg/d at night. She plans to resume care in an opioid treatment program and follow up with psychiatry and hepatology for her anxiety and hepatitis C.

A need for aggressive treatment

Given the rising rates of opioid use by patients who are pregnant, harmful behavior related to opioid use, and a wealth of evidence supporting opioid agonist treatment for OUD in pregnancy, there is a growing need for guidance in managing perinatal OUD. A systematic approach to using methadone to treat OUD in patients who are pregnant is essential; the lack of data surrounding use of this medication in such patients may cause overall harm.¹² Limited guidelines and a lack of familiarity with prescribing methadone to patients who are pregnant may lead clinicians to underdose patients, which can result in ongoing withdrawal, premature patient-directed discharges, and poor engagement in care.¹³ Both patients in the 2 cases described in this article experienced ongoing withdrawal symptoms despite daily titration of methadone. This suggests rapid metabolism, which was successfully managed by dividing the dosing of methadone, particularly in the latter trimesters.

These cases illustrate the need for aggressive perinatal opioid withdrawal management through rapid escalation of divided doses of methadone in a monitored acute care setting. Because methadone elimination is more rapid and clearance rates increase during the perinatal period, divided methadone dosing allows for sustained plasma methadone concentrations and improved outpatient treatment adherence.^9,14,15

Continue to: Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

Decreasing the rate of premature discharges

In both cases, the patients discharged from the hospital prematurely, likely related to incomplete management of their opioid withdrawal or other withdrawal syndromes (both patients had multiple substance use disorders [SUDs]). Compared to patients without an SUD, patients with SUDs are 3 times more likely to have a self-directed discharge.¹⁶ Patients report leaving the hospital prematurely due to undertreated withdrawal, uncontrolled pain, discrimination by staff, and hospital restrictions.¹⁶ Recommendations to decrease the rates of premature patient-directed discharges in this population include providing patient-centered and harm reduction–oriented care in addition to adequate management of pain and withdrawal.¹⁷

Impact of methadone on fetal outcomes

Approximately 55% to 94% of infants born to patients who are opioid-dependent will develop NOWS. However, there is no relationship between this syndrome and therapeutic doses of methadone.¹⁸ Moreover, long-term research has found that after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, methadone treatment during pregnancy does not have an adverse effect on postnatal development. Divided dosing in maternal methadone administration is also shown to have less of an impact on fetal neurobehavior and NOWS.¹⁹

Our recommendations for methadone treatment for perinatal patients are outlined in the Table. Aggressive treatment of opioid withdrawal in the hospital can promote treatment engagement and prevent premature discharges. Clinicians should assess for other withdrawal syndromes when a patient has multiple SUDs and collaborate with an interdisciplinary team to improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients who are pregnant is increasing. Methadone is an option for treating perinatal OUD, but the physiological changes that occur in patients who are pregnant—coupled with methadone’s unique pharmacologic properties—may complicate its use. Using divided doses of methadone can ensure the comfort and safety of the patient and their baby and improve adherence and outcomes.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/cp.0305
• Townsel C, Irani S, Buis C, et al. Partnering for the future clinic: a multidisciplinary perinatal substance use program. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023;85:220-228. doi:10.1016/j. genhosppsych.2023.10.009

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Buprenex, Suboxone, Zubsolv, Sublocade
Fentanyl • Abstral, Actiq
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lorazepam • Ativan
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Oxycodone • Oxycontin

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

LUTECH LT-300 HD FOR COLPOSCOPY

Background. In March 1924, the colposcope was introduced to evaluate the portio of the cervix by Hans Hinselmann in Germany after years of work with the famous lens manufacturer Leitz.1 Although its adoption as a standard tool for evaluating lower genital tract neoplasia was protracted, today it sits as a cornerstone technology in gynecology, and every ObGyn provider has been trained to perform colposcopic exams that include visualizing the cervix, vagina, and vulva as well as taking biopsies. In December 2000, after 75 years of glass lens technology, Welch-Allyn (Skaneateles Falls, New York) introduced the first video colposcope, shepherding the field into the 21st century with only limited traction. Now, Lutech is entering the fray hoping to further nudge traditionalists into the digital age.

Design/Functionality. The Lutech LT-300 HD works off of a Sony Exmor CMOS (complementary metaloxide semiconductor) camera with 2.13 megapixels to provide high-definition optical magnification of 1-30X illuminated by a circular cool LED array that offers 3000 lx of white light with an adjustable green filter to allow for contrast at working distances between 5.1 and 15.7 inches. The colposcope comes with either a vertical stand or a swing arm stand and has both HDMI and USB 3.0 video output so that the system can be attached to either a stand-alone monitor or a computer (not included). The colposcope also comes in a standard definition configuration (LT-300 SD), but I did not trial that model because the price difference did not seem to justify the potentially lower resolution.

In my experience with its use, the Lutech LT-300 HD was pretty excellent. Being a man and a doctor, I refused the online training session that comes free with the colposcope, assuming I could figure it out on my own. My assumption was mostly true, but there were definitely some tips and tricks that would have made my life easier had I not been so stiff-necked. That said, the biggest adjustment is getting used to looking at a screen and not having to look through eyepieces. The picture output is great and, as a patient (or student) teaching tool, it is phenomenal. Also, because it is digital, the image capture features allow for image importation into notes (although it is clunky and requires work arounds when using Epic).

Innovation. From an innovation point of view, I am not sure that Lutech re-invented fire since, in essence, the LT-300 HD is a modified CMOS video camera. But the company did do a nice job bringing together a lot of existing technologies into a highly functional product. I would love to see better integration with some of the larger electronic medical records (EMRs), but I suspect the barriers lie with the EMR companies rather than with Lutech, so I am giving them a pass on that front.

Summary. At its core, a colposcope is simply a tool with which to obtain a magnified view of the cervix, vagina, and/or vulva. Prior to advent and proliferation of CMOS camera technology, the most readily available means of accomplishing this was to employ glass lenses. But that was then, and this is now; CMOS technology is just better, cheaper, and more versatile. I no longer turn my head to look over my shoulder while backing up my car—I use the back-up camera. My Kodak instamatic has given way to my iPhone. And now, my incredibly heavy, unwieldy Leisegang colposcope has been replaced by a light-weight camera on a stand that I can easily move from room to room. I won’t lie, though,…it still seems weird to not look through eyepieces and work the focus knobs, but I am happy with the change. My patients can now see what I am looking at and better understand their diagnosis (if they want), and my notes are prettier. Onward march of progress.

Reference

1. Fusco E, Padula F, Mancini E, et al. History of colposcopy: a brief biography of Hinselmann. J Prenat Med. 2008;2:19-23.

Continue to: DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH...

DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH

The single-use DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch from Innovia Medical (Swansea, United Kingdom) “works great” and “is reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.”

Background. Integral to every colposcopic examination is the potential need to biopsy abnormal appearing tissues. To accomplish this latter task, numerous punch-style biopsy devices have been developed in a variety of jaw shapes and styles, crafted from materials ranging from stainless steel to titanium to ceramic, with the ultimate goal the same—get a piece of tissue from the cervix as easily as possible.

Design/Functionality. DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is a single-use sterile device that comes packaged as 10 per box. It features Kevorkian-style “stronger than Titanium” jaws that yield a 3.0 mm x 7.5 mm sample attached to a metal shaft that can rotate 360°. The shaft inserts into a lightweight plastic pistol-grip style handle. From tip to handle, the device measures 36.5 cm (14.125 in).

In my experience with its use, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch performed flawlessly. Its relatively low-profile jaws allowed for unobstructed access to biopsy sites and the ability to rotate the jaws was a big plus. The “stronger than Titanium” jaws consistently yielded the exact biopsies I wanted, like a knife going through butter.

Innovation. From an innovation standpoint, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is more of an engineering “duh” than “wow,” but it works great so who cares that it’s not a fusion reactor. That said, the innovative part from Innovia Medical is their ability to make such a high-quality biopsy device and sell it at a price that makes it reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.

Summary. Whether it is a Tischler, Kevorkian, or Burke tip, the real question before any gynecologist uses the cervical biopsy device she/he/they has in her/his/ their hand is, will it cut? Because all reusable surgical instruments are in fact reusable, those edges that are designed to cut invariably become dull with reuse. And, unless they are meticulously maintained and routinely sharpened (spoiler alert, they never are), providers are not infrequently chagrinned by the gnawing rather than cutting that these instruments deliver. Thinking back, I could not remember the last time I had made an incision with a surgical scalpel blade that had previously been used then sharpened and re-sterilized. Then I did remember…never. Reflecting on this, I wondered why I was doing this with my cervical biopsy devices. While I really do not like the environmental waste created by single-use devices, reusable instruments that require re-processing do have an environmental impact and a significant cost. Considering this, I do not think that environmental reasons are enough of a barrier to justify using dull biopsy tools if it can be done cost-effectively with a minimal carbon footprint. All-in-all, I like this product, and I plan to use it. ●

LUTECH LT-300 HD FOR COLPOSCOPY

Background. In March 1924, the colposcope was introduced to evaluate the portio of the cervix by Hans Hinselmann in Germany after years of work with the famous lens manufacturer Leitz.1 Although its adoption as a standard tool for evaluating lower genital tract neoplasia was protracted, today it sits as a cornerstone technology in gynecology, and every ObGyn provider has been trained to perform colposcopic exams that include visualizing the cervix, vagina, and vulva as well as taking biopsies. In December 2000, after 75 years of glass lens technology, Welch-Allyn (Skaneateles Falls, New York) introduced the first video colposcope, shepherding the field into the 21st century with only limited traction. Now, Lutech is entering the fray hoping to further nudge traditionalists into the digital age.

Design/Functionality. The Lutech LT-300 HD works off of a Sony Exmor CMOS (complementary metaloxide semiconductor) camera with 2.13 megapixels to provide high-definition optical magnification of 1-30X illuminated by a circular cool LED array that offers 3000 lx of white light with an adjustable green filter to allow for contrast at working distances between 5.1 and 15.7 inches. The colposcope comes with either a vertical stand or a swing arm stand and has both HDMI and USB 3.0 video output so that the system can be attached to either a stand-alone monitor or a computer (not included). The colposcope also comes in a standard definition configuration (LT-300 SD), but I did not trial that model because the price difference did not seem to justify the potentially lower resolution.

In my experience with its use, the Lutech LT-300 HD was pretty excellent. Being a man and a doctor, I refused the online training session that comes free with the colposcope, assuming I could figure it out on my own. My assumption was mostly true, but there were definitely some tips and tricks that would have made my life easier had I not been so stiff-necked. That said, the biggest adjustment is getting used to looking at a screen and not having to look through eyepieces. The picture output is great and, as a patient (or student) teaching tool, it is phenomenal. Also, because it is digital, the image capture features allow for image importation into notes (although it is clunky and requires work arounds when using Epic).

Innovation. From an innovation point of view, I am not sure that Lutech re-invented fire since, in essence, the LT-300 HD is a modified CMOS video camera. But the company did do a nice job bringing together a lot of existing technologies into a highly functional product. I would love to see better integration with some of the larger electronic medical records (EMRs), but I suspect the barriers lie with the EMR companies rather than with Lutech, so I am giving them a pass on that front.

Summary. At its core, a colposcope is simply a tool with which to obtain a magnified view of the cervix, vagina, and/or vulva. Prior to advent and proliferation of CMOS camera technology, the most readily available means of accomplishing this was to employ glass lenses. But that was then, and this is now; CMOS technology is just better, cheaper, and more versatile. I no longer turn my head to look over my shoulder while backing up my car—I use the back-up camera. My Kodak instamatic has given way to my iPhone. And now, my incredibly heavy, unwieldy Leisegang colposcope has been replaced by a light-weight camera on a stand that I can easily move from room to room. I won’t lie, though,…it still seems weird to not look through eyepieces and work the focus knobs, but I am happy with the change. My patients can now see what I am looking at and better understand their diagnosis (if they want), and my notes are prettier. Onward march of progress.

Reference

1. Fusco E, Padula F, Mancini E, et al. History of colposcopy: a brief biography of Hinselmann. J Prenat Med. 2008;2:19-23.

Continue to: DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH...

DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH

The single-use DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch from Innovia Medical (Swansea, United Kingdom) “works great” and “is reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.”

Background. Integral to every colposcopic examination is the potential need to biopsy abnormal appearing tissues. To accomplish this latter task, numerous punch-style biopsy devices have been developed in a variety of jaw shapes and styles, crafted from materials ranging from stainless steel to titanium to ceramic, with the ultimate goal the same—get a piece of tissue from the cervix as easily as possible.

Design/Functionality. DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is a single-use sterile device that comes packaged as 10 per box. It features Kevorkian-style “stronger than Titanium” jaws that yield a 3.0 mm x 7.5 mm sample attached to a metal shaft that can rotate 360°. The shaft inserts into a lightweight plastic pistol-grip style handle. From tip to handle, the device measures 36.5 cm (14.125 in).

In my experience with its use, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch performed flawlessly. Its relatively low-profile jaws allowed for unobstructed access to biopsy sites and the ability to rotate the jaws was a big plus. The “stronger than Titanium” jaws consistently yielded the exact biopsies I wanted, like a knife going through butter.

Innovation. From an innovation standpoint, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is more of an engineering “duh” than “wow,” but it works great so who cares that it’s not a fusion reactor. That said, the innovative part from Innovia Medical is their ability to make such a high-quality biopsy device and sell it at a price that makes it reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.

Summary. Whether it is a Tischler, Kevorkian, or Burke tip, the real question before any gynecologist uses the cervical biopsy device she/he/they has in her/his/ their hand is, will it cut? Because all reusable surgical instruments are in fact reusable, those edges that are designed to cut invariably become dull with reuse. And, unless they are meticulously maintained and routinely sharpened (spoiler alert, they never are), providers are not infrequently chagrinned by the gnawing rather than cutting that these instruments deliver. Thinking back, I could not remember the last time I had made an incision with a surgical scalpel blade that had previously been used then sharpened and re-sterilized. Then I did remember…never. Reflecting on this, I wondered why I was doing this with my cervical biopsy devices. While I really do not like the environmental waste created by single-use devices, reusable instruments that require re-processing do have an environmental impact and a significant cost. Considering this, I do not think that environmental reasons are enough of a barrier to justify using dull biopsy tools if it can be done cost-effectively with a minimal carbon footprint. All-in-all, I like this product, and I plan to use it. ●

LUTECH LT-300 HD FOR COLPOSCOPY

Background. In March 1924, the colposcope was introduced to evaluate the portio of the cervix by Hans Hinselmann in Germany after years of work with the famous lens manufacturer Leitz.1 Although its adoption as a standard tool for evaluating lower genital tract neoplasia was protracted, today it sits as a cornerstone technology in gynecology, and every ObGyn provider has been trained to perform colposcopic exams that include visualizing the cervix, vagina, and vulva as well as taking biopsies. In December 2000, after 75 years of glass lens technology, Welch-Allyn (Skaneateles Falls, New York) introduced the first video colposcope, shepherding the field into the 21st century with only limited traction. Now, Lutech is entering the fray hoping to further nudge traditionalists into the digital age.

Design/Functionality. The Lutech LT-300 HD works off of a Sony Exmor CMOS (complementary metaloxide semiconductor) camera with 2.13 megapixels to provide high-definition optical magnification of 1-30X illuminated by a circular cool LED array that offers 3000 lx of white light with an adjustable green filter to allow for contrast at working distances between 5.1 and 15.7 inches. The colposcope comes with either a vertical stand or a swing arm stand and has both HDMI and USB 3.0 video output so that the system can be attached to either a stand-alone monitor or a computer (not included). The colposcope also comes in a standard definition configuration (LT-300 SD), but I did not trial that model because the price difference did not seem to justify the potentially lower resolution.

In my experience with its use, the Lutech LT-300 HD was pretty excellent. Being a man and a doctor, I refused the online training session that comes free with the colposcope, assuming I could figure it out on my own. My assumption was mostly true, but there were definitely some tips and tricks that would have made my life easier had I not been so stiff-necked. That said, the biggest adjustment is getting used to looking at a screen and not having to look through eyepieces. The picture output is great and, as a patient (or student) teaching tool, it is phenomenal. Also, because it is digital, the image capture features allow for image importation into notes (although it is clunky and requires work arounds when using Epic).

Innovation. From an innovation point of view, I am not sure that Lutech re-invented fire since, in essence, the LT-300 HD is a modified CMOS video camera. But the company did do a nice job bringing together a lot of existing technologies into a highly functional product. I would love to see better integration with some of the larger electronic medical records (EMRs), but I suspect the barriers lie with the EMR companies rather than with Lutech, so I am giving them a pass on that front.

Summary. At its core, a colposcope is simply a tool with which to obtain a magnified view of the cervix, vagina, and/or vulva. Prior to advent and proliferation of CMOS camera technology, the most readily available means of accomplishing this was to employ glass lenses. But that was then, and this is now; CMOS technology is just better, cheaper, and more versatile. I no longer turn my head to look over my shoulder while backing up my car—I use the back-up camera. My Kodak instamatic has given way to my iPhone. And now, my incredibly heavy, unwieldy Leisegang colposcope has been replaced by a light-weight camera on a stand that I can easily move from room to room. I won’t lie, though,…it still seems weird to not look through eyepieces and work the focus knobs, but I am happy with the change. My patients can now see what I am looking at and better understand their diagnosis (if they want), and my notes are prettier. Onward march of progress.

Reference

1. Fusco E, Padula F, Mancini E, et al. History of colposcopy: a brief biography of Hinselmann. J Prenat Med. 2008;2:19-23.

Continue to: DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH...

DTR MEDICAL CERVICAL ROTATING BIOPSY PUNCH

The single-use DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch from Innovia Medical (Swansea, United Kingdom) “works great” and “is reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.”

Background. Integral to every colposcopic examination is the potential need to biopsy abnormal appearing tissues. To accomplish this latter task, numerous punch-style biopsy devices have been developed in a variety of jaw shapes and styles, crafted from materials ranging from stainless steel to titanium to ceramic, with the ultimate goal the same—get a piece of tissue from the cervix as easily as possible.

Design/Functionality. DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is a single-use sterile device that comes packaged as 10 per box. It features Kevorkian-style “stronger than Titanium” jaws that yield a 3.0 mm x 7.5 mm sample attached to a metal shaft that can rotate 360°. The shaft inserts into a lightweight plastic pistol-grip style handle. From tip to handle, the device measures 36.5 cm (14.125 in).

In my experience with its use, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch performed flawlessly. Its relatively low-profile jaws allowed for unobstructed access to biopsy sites and the ability to rotate the jaws was a big plus. The “stronger than Titanium” jaws consistently yielded the exact biopsies I wanted, like a knife going through butter.

Innovation. From an innovation standpoint, the DTR Medical Cervical Rotating Biopsy Punch is more of an engineering “duh” than “wow,” but it works great so who cares that it’s not a fusion reactor. That said, the innovative part from Innovia Medical is their ability to make such a high-quality biopsy device and sell it at a price that makes it reasonably cost-effective to replace reusables.

Summary. Whether it is a Tischler, Kevorkian, or Burke tip, the real question before any gynecologist uses the cervical biopsy device she/he/they has in her/his/ their hand is, will it cut? Because all reusable surgical instruments are in fact reusable, those edges that are designed to cut invariably become dull with reuse. And, unless they are meticulously maintained and routinely sharpened (spoiler alert, they never are), providers are not infrequently chagrinned by the gnawing rather than cutting that these instruments deliver. Thinking back, I could not remember the last time I had made an incision with a surgical scalpel blade that had previously been used then sharpened and re-sterilized. Then I did remember…never. Reflecting on this, I wondered why I was doing this with my cervical biopsy devices. While I really do not like the environmental waste created by single-use devices, reusable instruments that require re-processing do have an environmental impact and a significant cost. Considering this, I do not think that environmental reasons are enough of a barrier to justify using dull biopsy tools if it can be done cost-effectively with a minimal carbon footprint. All-in-all, I like this product, and I plan to use it. ●

On July 13, 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved norgestrel 0.075 mg (Opill, HRA Pharma, Paris, France) as the first nonprescription oral contraceptive pill (FIGURE). This progestin-only pill was originally FDA approved in 1973, with prescription required, and was available as Ovrette until 2005, when product distribution ceased for marketing reasons and not for safety or effectiveness concerns.¹ In recent years, studies have been conducted to support converted approval from prescription to nonprescription to increase access to safe and effective contraception. Overall, norgestrel is more effective than other currently available nonprescription contraceptive options when used as directed, and widespread accessibility to this method has the potential to decrease the risk of unintended pregnancies. This product is expected to be available in drugstores, convenience stores, grocery stores, and online in 2024.

How it works

The indication for norgestrel 0.075 mg is pregnancy prevention in people with the capacity to become pregnant; this product is not intended for emergency contraception. Norgestrel is a racemic mixture of 2 isomers, of which only levonorgestrel is bioactive. The mechanism of action for contraception is primarily through cervical mucus thickening, which inhibits sperm movement through the cervix. About 50% of users also have an additional contraceptive effect of ovulation suppression.²

Instructions for use. In the package label, users are instructed to take the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill daily, preferably at the same time each day and no more than 3 hours from the time taken on the previous day. This method can be started on any day of the cycle, and backup contraception (a barrier method) should be used for the first 48 hours after starting the method if it has been more than 5 days since menstrual bleeding started.3 Product instructions indicate that, if users miss a dose, they should take the next dose as soon as possible. If a pill is taken 3 hours or more later than the usual time, they should take a pill immediately and then resume the next pill at the usual time. In addition, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.²

Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, no examinations or tests are required prior to initiation of progestin-only pills for safe and effective use.³

Efficacy

The product label indicates that the pregnancy rate is approximately 2 per 100 women-years based on over 21,000 28-day exposure cycles from 8 US clinical studies.² In a recent review by Glasier and colleagues, the authors identified 13 trials that assessed the efficacy of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill, all published several decades ago.⁴ Given that breastfeeding can have contraceptive impact through ovulation inhibition, studies that included breastfeeding participants were evaluated separately. Six studies without breastfeeding participants included 3,184 women who provided more than 35,000 months of use. The overall failure rates ranged from 0 to 2.4 per hundred woman-years with typical use; an aggregate Pearl Index was calculated to be 2.2 based on the total numbers of pregnancies and cycles. The remaining 7 studies included individuals who were breastfeeding for at least part of their study participation. These studies included 5,445 women, and the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates in this group ranged from 0.0% to 3.4%. This review noted that the available studies are limited by incomplete descriptions of study participant information and differences in reporting of failure rates; however, the overall data support the effectiveness of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill for pregnancy prevention.

Continue to: Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus...

Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus

More recently, a prospective, multicenter randomized, crossover study was performed to better understand this pill’s impact on cervical mucus and ovulation during preparation for nonprescription approval. In this study, participants were evaluated with frequent transvaginal ultrasonography, cervical mucus, and blood assessments (including levels of follicular-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, progesterone, and estradiol) for three 28-day cycles. Cervical mucus was scored on a modified Insler scale to indicate if the mucus was favorable (Insler score ≥9), intermediate (Insler score 5-8), or unfavorable to fertility (Insler score ≤4).⁵

In the first cycle, participants were instructed to use the pills as prescribed (described as “correct use”). During this cycle, most participants (n = 34/51; 67%) did not ovulate, confirming that norgestrel 0.075 mg does impact ovulation.6 Most participants also had unfavorable cervical mucus (n = 39/51; 76%).⁶ Overall, 94% had full protection against pregnancy, either through lack of ovulation (n = 9), unfavorable mucus (n = 14), or both (n = 25). The remaining 3 participants ovulated and had intermediate mucus scores; ultimately, these participants were considered to have medium protection against pregnancy.^7,8 (See the contraceptive protection algorithm [TABLE]).⁸

In the second and third cycles, the investigators evaluated ovulation and cervical mucus changes in the setting of either a delayed (by 6 hours) or missed dose midcycle.⁸ Of the 46 participants with evaluable data during the intervention cycles, 32 (70%) did not ovulate in each of the delayed- and missed-dose cycles. Most participants (n = 27; 59%) also demonstrated unfavorable mucus scores (modified Insler score ≤4) over the entire cycle despite delaying or missing a pill. There was no significant change to the cervical mucus score when comparing the scores on the days before, during, and after the delayed or missed pills (P = .26), nor when comparing between delayed pill use and missed pill use (P = .45). With the delayed pill intervention, 4 (9%) had reduced contraceptive protection (ie, medium protection) based on ovulation with intermediate mucus scores. With the missed pill intervention, 5 (11%) had reduced protection, of whom 3 had medium protection and 2 had minimum protection with ovulation and favorable mucus scores. Overall, this study shows that delaying or missing one pill may not impact contraceptive efficacy as much as previously thought given the strict 3-hour window for progestin-only pills. However, these findings are theoretical as information about pregnancy outcomes with delaying or missing pills are lacking.

Safety

Progestin-only methods are one of the safest options for contraception, with few contraindications to use; those listed include known or suspected pregnancy, known or suspected carcinoma of the breast or other progestinsensitive cancer, undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity to any component of the product, benign or malignant liver tumors, and acute liver disease.²

The CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use guidelines offer guidance for progestin-only pills, indicating a category 3 (theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages) or category 4 (unacceptable health risk, method not to be used) for only a select number of additional conditions. These conditions include a history of malabsorptive bariatric surgery (category 3) and concurrent use of medications that induce hepatic enzyme activity (category 3)— such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, rifampin, and rifabutin.⁹ These conditions are included primarily due to concerns of decreased effectivenessof the contraception and not necessarily because of evidence of harm with use.

The prevalence of consumers with contraindications to progestin-only pills appears to be low. In a large database study, only 4.36% seeking preventive care and 2.29% seeking both preventive and contraceptive services had a contraindication to progestin-only pills.10 Therefore, candidates for norgestrel use include individuals who have commonly encountered conditions, including those who⁹:

• have recently given birth
• are breastfeeding
• have a history of venous thromboembolism
• smoke
• have cardiovascular disease, hypertension, migraines with aura, or longstanding diabetes.

Adverse effects

The most common adverse effects (AEs) related to norgestrel use are bleeding changes.² In the initial clinical studies for FDA approval, about half of enrolled participants reported a change in bleeding; about 9% discontinued the contraceptive due to bleeding. Breakthrough bleeding and spotting were reported by 48.6% and 47.3% of participants, respectively. About 6.1% had amenorrhea in their first cycle; 28.7% of participants had amenorrhea overall. Other reported AEs were headache, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, abdominal pain, cramps or bloating, breast tenderness, and acne.

Continue to:  FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification...

FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification

As part of the process for obtaining nonprescription approval, studies needed to determine that patients can safely and effectively use norgestrel without talking to a health care provider first. As part of that process, label comprehension, self-selection, and actualuse studies were required to demonstrate that consumers can use the package information to determine their eligibility and take the medication appropriately.

The ACCESS study Research Q: Do patients appropriately determine if the contraceptive is right for them?

Study A: Yes, 99% of the time. In the Adherence with Continuous-dose Oral Contraceptive: Evaluation of Self-Selection and Use (ACCESS) pivotal study, which evaluated prescription to nonprescription approval, participants were asked to review the label and determine whether the product was appropriate for them to use based on their health history.¹¹ Approximately 99% of participants (n = 1,234/1,246) were able to correctly self-select whether norgestrel was appropriate for their own use.¹²

Research Q: After beginning the contraceptive, do patients adhere to correct use?

Study A: Yes, more than 90% of the time (and that remained true for subpopulations).

In the next phase of the ACCESS study, eligible participants from the self-selection population who purchased norgestrel and reported using the product at least once in their e-diary over a 6-month study period comprised the “User Population.”¹² The overall adherence to daily pill intake was 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3–92.6%) among the 883 participants who contributed more than 90,000 days of study participation, and adherence was similarly high in subpopulations of individuals with low health literacy (92.6%; 95% CI, 92.1–93.0), adolescents aged 12–14 years (91.8%; 95% CI, 91.0–92.5%), and adolescents aged 15–17 years (91.9%; 95% CI, 91.4%–92.3%).

Research Q: When a pill was missed, did patients use backup contraception?

Study A: Yes, 97% of the time.

When including whether participants followed label instructions for mitigating behaviors when the pill was missed (eg, take a pill as soon as they remember, use backup contraception for 2 days after restarting the pill), adherence was 97.1% (95% CI, 97.0–97.2%). Most participants missed a single day of taking pills, and the most common reported reason for missing pills was issues with resupply as participants needed to get new packs from their enrolled research site, which should be less of a barrier when these pills are available over the counter.

Clinical implications of expanded access

Opportunities to expand access to effective contraception have become more critical in the increasingly restrictive environment for abortion care in the post-Dobbs era, and the availability of norgestrel to patients without prescription can advance contraceptive equity. Patients encounter many barriers to accessing prescription contraception, such as lack of insurance; difficulty with scheduling an appointment or getting to a clinic; not having a regular clinician or clinic; or health care providers requiring a visit, exam, or test prior to prescribing contraception.13,14 For patients who face these challenges, an alternative option is to use a nonprescription contraceptive, such as barrier or fertility awareness–based methods, which are typically associated with higher failure rates. With the introduction of norgestrel as a nonprescription contraceptive product, people can have direct access to a more effective contraceptive option.

A follow-up study of participants who had participated in the ACCESS actual-use study demonstrated that most (83%) would be likely to use the nonprescription method if available in the future for many reasons, including convenience, ease of access, ability to save time and money, not needing to visit a clinic, and flexibility of accessing the pills while traveling or having someone else get their pills for them.¹⁴ Furthermore, a nonprescription method could be beneficial for people who have concerns about privacy, such as adolescents or individuals affected by contraception sabotage (an act that can intentionally limit or prohibit a person's contraception access or use, ie, damaging condoms or hiding a person’s contraception method). This expansion of access can ultimately lead to a decrease in unintended pregnancies. In a model using the ACCESS actual-use data, about 1,500 to 34,000 unintended pregnancies would be prevented per year based on varying model parameters, with all scenarios demonstrating a benefit to nonprescription access to norgestrel.¹⁵

After norgestrel is available, where will patients be able to seek more information?

Patients who have questions or concerns about starting or taking norgestrel should talk to their clinician or a pharmacist for additional information (FIGURE 2). Examples of situations when additional clinical evaluation or counseling are recommended include:

• when a person is taking any medications with possible drug-drug interactions
• if a person is starting norgestrel after taking an emergency contraceptive in the last 5 days
• if there is a concern about pregnancy
• when there are any questions about adverse effects while taking norgestrel.

Bottom line

The nonprescription approval of norgestrel, a progestin-only pill, has the potential to greatly expand patient access to a safe and effective contraceptive method and advance contraceptive equity. The availability of informational materials for consumers about potential issues that may arise (for instance, changes in bleeding) will be important for initiation and continuation of this method. As this product is not yet available for purchase, several unknown factors remain, such as the cost and ease of accessibility in stores or online, that will ultimately determine its public health impact on unintended pregnancies. ●

On July 13, 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved norgestrel 0.075 mg (Opill, HRA Pharma, Paris, France) as the first nonprescription oral contraceptive pill (FIGURE). This progestin-only pill was originally FDA approved in 1973, with prescription required, and was available as Ovrette until 2005, when product distribution ceased for marketing reasons and not for safety or effectiveness concerns.¹ In recent years, studies have been conducted to support converted approval from prescription to nonprescription to increase access to safe and effective contraception. Overall, norgestrel is more effective than other currently available nonprescription contraceptive options when used as directed, and widespread accessibility to this method has the potential to decrease the risk of unintended pregnancies. This product is expected to be available in drugstores, convenience stores, grocery stores, and online in 2024.

How it works

The indication for norgestrel 0.075 mg is pregnancy prevention in people with the capacity to become pregnant; this product is not intended for emergency contraception. Norgestrel is a racemic mixture of 2 isomers, of which only levonorgestrel is bioactive. The mechanism of action for contraception is primarily through cervical mucus thickening, which inhibits sperm movement through the cervix. About 50% of users also have an additional contraceptive effect of ovulation suppression.²

Instructions for use. In the package label, users are instructed to take the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill daily, preferably at the same time each day and no more than 3 hours from the time taken on the previous day. This method can be started on any day of the cycle, and backup contraception (a barrier method) should be used for the first 48 hours after starting the method if it has been more than 5 days since menstrual bleeding started.3 Product instructions indicate that, if users miss a dose, they should take the next dose as soon as possible. If a pill is taken 3 hours or more later than the usual time, they should take a pill immediately and then resume the next pill at the usual time. In addition, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.²

Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, no examinations or tests are required prior to initiation of progestin-only pills for safe and effective use.³

Efficacy

The product label indicates that the pregnancy rate is approximately 2 per 100 women-years based on over 21,000 28-day exposure cycles from 8 US clinical studies.² In a recent review by Glasier and colleagues, the authors identified 13 trials that assessed the efficacy of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill, all published several decades ago.⁴ Given that breastfeeding can have contraceptive impact through ovulation inhibition, studies that included breastfeeding participants were evaluated separately. Six studies without breastfeeding participants included 3,184 women who provided more than 35,000 months of use. The overall failure rates ranged from 0 to 2.4 per hundred woman-years with typical use; an aggregate Pearl Index was calculated to be 2.2 based on the total numbers of pregnancies and cycles. The remaining 7 studies included individuals who were breastfeeding for at least part of their study participation. These studies included 5,445 women, and the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates in this group ranged from 0.0% to 3.4%. This review noted that the available studies are limited by incomplete descriptions of study participant information and differences in reporting of failure rates; however, the overall data support the effectiveness of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill for pregnancy prevention.

Continue to: Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus...

Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus

More recently, a prospective, multicenter randomized, crossover study was performed to better understand this pill’s impact on cervical mucus and ovulation during preparation for nonprescription approval. In this study, participants were evaluated with frequent transvaginal ultrasonography, cervical mucus, and blood assessments (including levels of follicular-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, progesterone, and estradiol) for three 28-day cycles. Cervical mucus was scored on a modified Insler scale to indicate if the mucus was favorable (Insler score ≥9), intermediate (Insler score 5-8), or unfavorable to fertility (Insler score ≤4).⁵

In the first cycle, participants were instructed to use the pills as prescribed (described as “correct use”). During this cycle, most participants (n = 34/51; 67%) did not ovulate, confirming that norgestrel 0.075 mg does impact ovulation.6 Most participants also had unfavorable cervical mucus (n = 39/51; 76%).⁶ Overall, 94% had full protection against pregnancy, either through lack of ovulation (n = 9), unfavorable mucus (n = 14), or both (n = 25). The remaining 3 participants ovulated and had intermediate mucus scores; ultimately, these participants were considered to have medium protection against pregnancy.^7,8 (See the contraceptive protection algorithm [TABLE]).⁸

In the second and third cycles, the investigators evaluated ovulation and cervical mucus changes in the setting of either a delayed (by 6 hours) or missed dose midcycle.⁸ Of the 46 participants with evaluable data during the intervention cycles, 32 (70%) did not ovulate in each of the delayed- and missed-dose cycles. Most participants (n = 27; 59%) also demonstrated unfavorable mucus scores (modified Insler score ≤4) over the entire cycle despite delaying or missing a pill. There was no significant change to the cervical mucus score when comparing the scores on the days before, during, and after the delayed or missed pills (P = .26), nor when comparing between delayed pill use and missed pill use (P = .45). With the delayed pill intervention, 4 (9%) had reduced contraceptive protection (ie, medium protection) based on ovulation with intermediate mucus scores. With the missed pill intervention, 5 (11%) had reduced protection, of whom 3 had medium protection and 2 had minimum protection with ovulation and favorable mucus scores. Overall, this study shows that delaying or missing one pill may not impact contraceptive efficacy as much as previously thought given the strict 3-hour window for progestin-only pills. However, these findings are theoretical as information about pregnancy outcomes with delaying or missing pills are lacking.

Safety

Progestin-only methods are one of the safest options for contraception, with few contraindications to use; those listed include known or suspected pregnancy, known or suspected carcinoma of the breast or other progestinsensitive cancer, undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity to any component of the product, benign or malignant liver tumors, and acute liver disease.²

The CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use guidelines offer guidance for progestin-only pills, indicating a category 3 (theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages) or category 4 (unacceptable health risk, method not to be used) for only a select number of additional conditions. These conditions include a history of malabsorptive bariatric surgery (category 3) and concurrent use of medications that induce hepatic enzyme activity (category 3)— such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, rifampin, and rifabutin.⁹ These conditions are included primarily due to concerns of decreased effectivenessof the contraception and not necessarily because of evidence of harm with use.

The prevalence of consumers with contraindications to progestin-only pills appears to be low. In a large database study, only 4.36% seeking preventive care and 2.29% seeking both preventive and contraceptive services had a contraindication to progestin-only pills.10 Therefore, candidates for norgestrel use include individuals who have commonly encountered conditions, including those who⁹:

• have recently given birth
• are breastfeeding
• have a history of venous thromboembolism
• smoke
• have cardiovascular disease, hypertension, migraines with aura, or longstanding diabetes.

Adverse effects

The most common adverse effects (AEs) related to norgestrel use are bleeding changes.² In the initial clinical studies for FDA approval, about half of enrolled participants reported a change in bleeding; about 9% discontinued the contraceptive due to bleeding. Breakthrough bleeding and spotting were reported by 48.6% and 47.3% of participants, respectively. About 6.1% had amenorrhea in their first cycle; 28.7% of participants had amenorrhea overall. Other reported AEs were headache, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, abdominal pain, cramps or bloating, breast tenderness, and acne.

Continue to:  FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification...

FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification

As part of the process for obtaining nonprescription approval, studies needed to determine that patients can safely and effectively use norgestrel without talking to a health care provider first. As part of that process, label comprehension, self-selection, and actualuse studies were required to demonstrate that consumers can use the package information to determine their eligibility and take the medication appropriately.

The ACCESS study Research Q: Do patients appropriately determine if the contraceptive is right for them?

Study A: Yes, 99% of the time. In the Adherence with Continuous-dose Oral Contraceptive: Evaluation of Self-Selection and Use (ACCESS) pivotal study, which evaluated prescription to nonprescription approval, participants were asked to review the label and determine whether the product was appropriate for them to use based on their health history.¹¹ Approximately 99% of participants (n = 1,234/1,246) were able to correctly self-select whether norgestrel was appropriate for their own use.¹²

Research Q: After beginning the contraceptive, do patients adhere to correct use?

Study A: Yes, more than 90% of the time (and that remained true for subpopulations).

In the next phase of the ACCESS study, eligible participants from the self-selection population who purchased norgestrel and reported using the product at least once in their e-diary over a 6-month study period comprised the “User Population.”¹² The overall adherence to daily pill intake was 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3–92.6%) among the 883 participants who contributed more than 90,000 days of study participation, and adherence was similarly high in subpopulations of individuals with low health literacy (92.6%; 95% CI, 92.1–93.0), adolescents aged 12–14 years (91.8%; 95% CI, 91.0–92.5%), and adolescents aged 15–17 years (91.9%; 95% CI, 91.4%–92.3%).

Research Q: When a pill was missed, did patients use backup contraception?

Study A: Yes, 97% of the time.

When including whether participants followed label instructions for mitigating behaviors when the pill was missed (eg, take a pill as soon as they remember, use backup contraception for 2 days after restarting the pill), adherence was 97.1% (95% CI, 97.0–97.2%). Most participants missed a single day of taking pills, and the most common reported reason for missing pills was issues with resupply as participants needed to get new packs from their enrolled research site, which should be less of a barrier when these pills are available over the counter.

Clinical implications of expanded access

Opportunities to expand access to effective contraception have become more critical in the increasingly restrictive environment for abortion care in the post-Dobbs era, and the availability of norgestrel to patients without prescription can advance contraceptive equity. Patients encounter many barriers to accessing prescription contraception, such as lack of insurance; difficulty with scheduling an appointment or getting to a clinic; not having a regular clinician or clinic; or health care providers requiring a visit, exam, or test prior to prescribing contraception.13,14 For patients who face these challenges, an alternative option is to use a nonprescription contraceptive, such as barrier or fertility awareness–based methods, which are typically associated with higher failure rates. With the introduction of norgestrel as a nonprescription contraceptive product, people can have direct access to a more effective contraceptive option.

A follow-up study of participants who had participated in the ACCESS actual-use study demonstrated that most (83%) would be likely to use the nonprescription method if available in the future for many reasons, including convenience, ease of access, ability to save time and money, not needing to visit a clinic, and flexibility of accessing the pills while traveling or having someone else get their pills for them.¹⁴ Furthermore, a nonprescription method could be beneficial for people who have concerns about privacy, such as adolescents or individuals affected by contraception sabotage (an act that can intentionally limit or prohibit a person's contraception access or use, ie, damaging condoms or hiding a person’s contraception method). This expansion of access can ultimately lead to a decrease in unintended pregnancies. In a model using the ACCESS actual-use data, about 1,500 to 34,000 unintended pregnancies would be prevented per year based on varying model parameters, with all scenarios demonstrating a benefit to nonprescription access to norgestrel.¹⁵

After norgestrel is available, where will patients be able to seek more information?

Patients who have questions or concerns about starting or taking norgestrel should talk to their clinician or a pharmacist for additional information (FIGURE 2). Examples of situations when additional clinical evaluation or counseling are recommended include:

• when a person is taking any medications with possible drug-drug interactions
• if a person is starting norgestrel after taking an emergency contraceptive in the last 5 days
• if there is a concern about pregnancy
• when there are any questions about adverse effects while taking norgestrel.

Bottom line

The nonprescription approval of norgestrel, a progestin-only pill, has the potential to greatly expand patient access to a safe and effective contraceptive method and advance contraceptive equity. The availability of informational materials for consumers about potential issues that may arise (for instance, changes in bleeding) will be important for initiation and continuation of this method. As this product is not yet available for purchase, several unknown factors remain, such as the cost and ease of accessibility in stores or online, that will ultimately determine its public health impact on unintended pregnancies. ●

On July 13, 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved norgestrel 0.075 mg (Opill, HRA Pharma, Paris, France) as the first nonprescription oral contraceptive pill (FIGURE). This progestin-only pill was originally FDA approved in 1973, with prescription required, and was available as Ovrette until 2005, when product distribution ceased for marketing reasons and not for safety or effectiveness concerns.¹ In recent years, studies have been conducted to support converted approval from prescription to nonprescription to increase access to safe and effective contraception. Overall, norgestrel is more effective than other currently available nonprescription contraceptive options when used as directed, and widespread accessibility to this method has the potential to decrease the risk of unintended pregnancies. This product is expected to be available in drugstores, convenience stores, grocery stores, and online in 2024.

How it works

The indication for norgestrel 0.075 mg is pregnancy prevention in people with the capacity to become pregnant; this product is not intended for emergency contraception. Norgestrel is a racemic mixture of 2 isomers, of which only levonorgestrel is bioactive. The mechanism of action for contraception is primarily through cervical mucus thickening, which inhibits sperm movement through the cervix. About 50% of users also have an additional contraceptive effect of ovulation suppression.²

Instructions for use. In the package label, users are instructed to take the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill daily, preferably at the same time each day and no more than 3 hours from the time taken on the previous day. This method can be started on any day of the cycle, and backup contraception (a barrier method) should be used for the first 48 hours after starting the method if it has been more than 5 days since menstrual bleeding started.3 Product instructions indicate that, if users miss a dose, they should take the next dose as soon as possible. If a pill is taken 3 hours or more later than the usual time, they should take a pill immediately and then resume the next pill at the usual time. In addition, backup contraception is recommended for 48 hours.²

Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, no examinations or tests are required prior to initiation of progestin-only pills for safe and effective use.³

Efficacy

The product label indicates that the pregnancy rate is approximately 2 per 100 women-years based on over 21,000 28-day exposure cycles from 8 US clinical studies.² In a recent review by Glasier and colleagues, the authors identified 13 trials that assessed the efficacy of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill, all published several decades ago.⁴ Given that breastfeeding can have contraceptive impact through ovulation inhibition, studies that included breastfeeding participants were evaluated separately. Six studies without breastfeeding participants included 3,184 women who provided more than 35,000 months of use. The overall failure rates ranged from 0 to 2.4 per hundred woman-years with typical use; an aggregate Pearl Index was calculated to be 2.2 based on the total numbers of pregnancies and cycles. The remaining 7 studies included individuals who were breastfeeding for at least part of their study participation. These studies included 5,445 women, and the 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates in this group ranged from 0.0% to 3.4%. This review noted that the available studies are limited by incomplete descriptions of study participant information and differences in reporting of failure rates; however, the overall data support the effectiveness of the norgestrel 0.075 mg pill for pregnancy prevention.

Continue to: Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus...

Norgestrel’s mechanism of action on ovarian activity and cervical mucus

More recently, a prospective, multicenter randomized, crossover study was performed to better understand this pill’s impact on cervical mucus and ovulation during preparation for nonprescription approval. In this study, participants were evaluated with frequent transvaginal ultrasonography, cervical mucus, and blood assessments (including levels of follicular-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, progesterone, and estradiol) for three 28-day cycles. Cervical mucus was scored on a modified Insler scale to indicate if the mucus was favorable (Insler score ≥9), intermediate (Insler score 5-8), or unfavorable to fertility (Insler score ≤4).⁵

In the first cycle, participants were instructed to use the pills as prescribed (described as “correct use”). During this cycle, most participants (n = 34/51; 67%) did not ovulate, confirming that norgestrel 0.075 mg does impact ovulation.6 Most participants also had unfavorable cervical mucus (n = 39/51; 76%).⁶ Overall, 94% had full protection against pregnancy, either through lack of ovulation (n = 9), unfavorable mucus (n = 14), or both (n = 25). The remaining 3 participants ovulated and had intermediate mucus scores; ultimately, these participants were considered to have medium protection against pregnancy.^7,8 (See the contraceptive protection algorithm [TABLE]).⁸

In the second and third cycles, the investigators evaluated ovulation and cervical mucus changes in the setting of either a delayed (by 6 hours) or missed dose midcycle.⁸ Of the 46 participants with evaluable data during the intervention cycles, 32 (70%) did not ovulate in each of the delayed- and missed-dose cycles. Most participants (n = 27; 59%) also demonstrated unfavorable mucus scores (modified Insler score ≤4) over the entire cycle despite delaying or missing a pill. There was no significant change to the cervical mucus score when comparing the scores on the days before, during, and after the delayed or missed pills (P = .26), nor when comparing between delayed pill use and missed pill use (P = .45). With the delayed pill intervention, 4 (9%) had reduced contraceptive protection (ie, medium protection) based on ovulation with intermediate mucus scores. With the missed pill intervention, 5 (11%) had reduced protection, of whom 3 had medium protection and 2 had minimum protection with ovulation and favorable mucus scores. Overall, this study shows that delaying or missing one pill may not impact contraceptive efficacy as much as previously thought given the strict 3-hour window for progestin-only pills. However, these findings are theoretical as information about pregnancy outcomes with delaying or missing pills are lacking.

Safety

Progestin-only methods are one of the safest options for contraception, with few contraindications to use; those listed include known or suspected pregnancy, known or suspected carcinoma of the breast or other progestinsensitive cancer, undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding, hypersensitivity to any component of the product, benign or malignant liver tumors, and acute liver disease.²

The CDC Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use guidelines offer guidance for progestin-only pills, indicating a category 3 (theoretical or proven risks usually outweigh the advantages) or category 4 (unacceptable health risk, method not to be used) for only a select number of additional conditions. These conditions include a history of malabsorptive bariatric surgery (category 3) and concurrent use of medications that induce hepatic enzyme activity (category 3)— such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, barbiturates, primidone, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, rifampin, and rifabutin.⁹ These conditions are included primarily due to concerns of decreased effectivenessof the contraception and not necessarily because of evidence of harm with use.

The prevalence of consumers with contraindications to progestin-only pills appears to be low. In a large database study, only 4.36% seeking preventive care and 2.29% seeking both preventive and contraceptive services had a contraindication to progestin-only pills.10 Therefore, candidates for norgestrel use include individuals who have commonly encountered conditions, including those who⁹:

• have recently given birth
• are breastfeeding
• have a history of venous thromboembolism
• smoke
• have cardiovascular disease, hypertension, migraines with aura, or longstanding diabetes.

Adverse effects

The most common adverse effects (AEs) related to norgestrel use are bleeding changes.² In the initial clinical studies for FDA approval, about half of enrolled participants reported a change in bleeding; about 9% discontinued the contraceptive due to bleeding. Breakthrough bleeding and spotting were reported by 48.6% and 47.3% of participants, respectively. About 6.1% had amenorrhea in their first cycle; 28.7% of participants had amenorrhea overall. Other reported AEs were headache, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, abdominal pain, cramps or bloating, breast tenderness, and acne.

Continue to:  FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification...

FDA approval required determining appropriate direct-to-patient classification

As part of the process for obtaining nonprescription approval, studies needed to determine that patients can safely and effectively use norgestrel without talking to a health care provider first. As part of that process, label comprehension, self-selection, and actualuse studies were required to demonstrate that consumers can use the package information to determine their eligibility and take the medication appropriately.

The ACCESS study Research Q: Do patients appropriately determine if the contraceptive is right for them?

Study A: Yes, 99% of the time. In the Adherence with Continuous-dose Oral Contraceptive: Evaluation of Self-Selection and Use (ACCESS) pivotal study, which evaluated prescription to nonprescription approval, participants were asked to review the label and determine whether the product was appropriate for them to use based on their health history.¹¹ Approximately 99% of participants (n = 1,234/1,246) were able to correctly self-select whether norgestrel was appropriate for their own use.¹²

Research Q: After beginning the contraceptive, do patients adhere to correct use?

Study A: Yes, more than 90% of the time (and that remained true for subpopulations).

In the next phase of the ACCESS study, eligible participants from the self-selection population who purchased norgestrel and reported using the product at least once in their e-diary over a 6-month study period comprised the “User Population.”¹² The overall adherence to daily pill intake was 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3–92.6%) among the 883 participants who contributed more than 90,000 days of study participation, and adherence was similarly high in subpopulations of individuals with low health literacy (92.6%; 95% CI, 92.1–93.0), adolescents aged 12–14 years (91.8%; 95% CI, 91.0–92.5%), and adolescents aged 15–17 years (91.9%; 95% CI, 91.4%–92.3%).

Research Q: When a pill was missed, did patients use backup contraception?

Study A: Yes, 97% of the time.

When including whether participants followed label instructions for mitigating behaviors when the pill was missed (eg, take a pill as soon as they remember, use backup contraception for 2 days after restarting the pill), adherence was 97.1% (95% CI, 97.0–97.2%). Most participants missed a single day of taking pills, and the most common reported reason for missing pills was issues with resupply as participants needed to get new packs from their enrolled research site, which should be less of a barrier when these pills are available over the counter.

Clinical implications of expanded access

Opportunities to expand access to effective contraception have become more critical in the increasingly restrictive environment for abortion care in the post-Dobbs era, and the availability of norgestrel to patients without prescription can advance contraceptive equity. Patients encounter many barriers to accessing prescription contraception, such as lack of insurance; difficulty with scheduling an appointment or getting to a clinic; not having a regular clinician or clinic; or health care providers requiring a visit, exam, or test prior to prescribing contraception.13,14 For patients who face these challenges, an alternative option is to use a nonprescription contraceptive, such as barrier or fertility awareness–based methods, which are typically associated with higher failure rates. With the introduction of norgestrel as a nonprescription contraceptive product, people can have direct access to a more effective contraceptive option.

A follow-up study of participants who had participated in the ACCESS actual-use study demonstrated that most (83%) would be likely to use the nonprescription method if available in the future for many reasons, including convenience, ease of access, ability to save time and money, not needing to visit a clinic, and flexibility of accessing the pills while traveling or having someone else get their pills for them.¹⁴ Furthermore, a nonprescription method could be beneficial for people who have concerns about privacy, such as adolescents or individuals affected by contraception sabotage (an act that can intentionally limit or prohibit a person's contraception access or use, ie, damaging condoms or hiding a person’s contraception method). This expansion of access can ultimately lead to a decrease in unintended pregnancies. In a model using the ACCESS actual-use data, about 1,500 to 34,000 unintended pregnancies would be prevented per year based on varying model parameters, with all scenarios demonstrating a benefit to nonprescription access to norgestrel.¹⁵

After norgestrel is available, where will patients be able to seek more information?

Patients who have questions or concerns about starting or taking norgestrel should talk to their clinician or a pharmacist for additional information (FIGURE 2). Examples of situations when additional clinical evaluation or counseling are recommended include:

• when a person is taking any medications with possible drug-drug interactions
• if a person is starting norgestrel after taking an emergency contraceptive in the last 5 days
• if there is a concern about pregnancy
• when there are any questions about adverse effects while taking norgestrel.

Bottom line

The nonprescription approval of norgestrel, a progestin-only pill, has the potential to greatly expand patient access to a safe and effective contraceptive method and advance contraceptive equity. The availability of informational materials for consumers about potential issues that may arise (for instance, changes in bleeding) will be important for initiation and continuation of this method. As this product is not yet available for purchase, several unknown factors remain, such as the cost and ease of accessibility in stores or online, that will ultimately determine its public health impact on unintended pregnancies. ●

Evidence continues to show that the number of practicing ObGyns lags the growing and diverse US population of women.¹ Furthermore, approximately 1 in every 3 ObGyns will move usually once or twice every 10 years.² Knowing what to expect in being recruited requires a better understanding of your needs and capabilities and what they may be worth in real time. Some ObGyns elect to use a recruitment firm to begin their search to more objectively assess what is fair and equitable.

Understanding physician compensation involves many factors, such as patient composition, sources of reimbursement, impact of health care systems, and geography.³ Several sources report trends in annual physician compensation, most notably the American Medical Association, medical specialty organizations, and recruitment firms. Sources such as the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), the American Medical Group Association (AMGA), and Medscape report total compensation.

Determining salaries for new positions

A standard and comprehensive benchmarking resource for salaries in new positions has been the annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives by AMN Healthcare (formerly Merritt Hawkins) Physician Solutions.⁴ This resource is used by hospitals, medical groups, academics, other health care systems, and others who track trends in physician supply, demand, and compensation. Their 2023 report considered starting salaries for more than 20 medical or surgical specialties.

Specialists’ revenue-generating potential is tracked by annual billings to commercial payers. The average annual billing by a full-time ObGyn ($3.8 million) is about the same as that of other specialties combined.⁵ As in the past, ObGyns are among the most consistently requested specialists in searches. In 2023, ObGyns were ranked the third most common physician specialists being recruited and tenth as the percentage of physicians per specialty (TABLE).⁴

Full-time salaries for ObGyns have remained within the middle third of all specialties. They consistently have been higher than primary care physicians’ salaries but remain among the lowest of the surgical specialties. This impression is reinforced by 2023 data shown in FIGURE 1.⁴ In the past, salaries remained flat compared with other surgical specialties. As with other specialties, starting salaries decreased during the peak 2020 and 2021 COVID-19 years. It is encouraging that averaged full-time salaries for recruiting ObGyns increased by 14.1% from 2020–2021 to 2021–2022 and by 10.5% from 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 (FIGURE 2).⁴

Special considerations

Incomes tended to be highest for ObGyns practicing in metropolitan areas with population sizes less than 1 million rather than in larger metropolitan areas.³ However, differences in reported incomes do not control for cost of living and other determinants of income (for example, surgeries, deliveries, patient care hours worked). Averaged salaries can vary regionally in the following order from highest to lowest: Midwest/Great Plains, West, Southwest, and Northeast and Southeast.⁴

Differences in starting salaries between male and female ObGyns are often not reported, although they are a very important consideration.^6,7 Both men and women desire “controllable lifestyles” with more flexibility and working in shifts. Sex-based differences in physician salary and compensation can be complex. Explanations may deal with the number of patients seen, number of procedures and surgeries performed, and frequency of after-hours duties. Women constitute most ObGyns, and their salary being at any lower end of the income spectrum may be partially explained by fewer desired work hours or less seniority.

Annual earnings can vary and are positively related to the number of working hours, being in the middle of one’s career (aged 42–51 years), working in a moderately large practice rather than in a solo or self-employed practice, and being board certified.³ A lower starting salary would be anticipated for a recent graduate. However, the resident going into a hard-to-fill position may be offered a higher salary than an experienced ObGyn who takes a relatively easy-to-fill position in a popular location. Practices would be more desirable in which patient volume is sufficient to invest in nonphysician clinicians and revenue-generating ancillary services that do not require costly layers of administration.

Information on physician salaries for new positions from individual recruiting or research firms can serve as a starting point for negotiation, although it may not entirely be representative. Sample sizes can be small, and information in some specialties may not separate salaries of physicians in academic versus nonacademic positions and generalists versus subspecialists. The information in this article reflects the average salaries offered to attract physicians to new practice settings rather than what they might earn and report on their tax return.

Continue to: Incentives...

Incentives

Negotiations involve incentives along with a starting salary. Signing bonuses, movingallowances, continuing education time and allowances, and medical education loan repayments are important incentives. Recent signing bonuses (average, $37,472) likely reflect efforts to bring physicians back to health care facilities post-COVID-19 or, more commonly, when candidates are considering multiple opportunities.⁴ It is important to clarify at the beginning any coverage for health insurance and professional liability insurance.

Relocation allowances are for those being recruited outside their current area of residence. The average continuing medical education allowance was $3,840 in 2023.⁴ Medical school debt is common, being approximately $200,000 at graduation for many. An educational loan repayment (average, $98,665) is typically an exchange for a commitment to stay in the community for a given period.

Starting employment contracts with hospitals or large medical groups often feature a production bonus to reward additional clinical work performed or an adherence to quality protocol or guidelines, rather than income guarantees alone. Metrics are usually volume driven (for example, relative value units, net collections, gross billings, patients seen). Initiatives by payers and health care organizations have included quality metrics, such as high patient satisfaction scores, low morbidity rates, and low readmission rates. Production-based formulas are straightforward, while use of quality-based formulas (up to 14% of total compensation) can be less clear to define.⁴ ●

Evidence continues to show that the number of practicing ObGyns lags the growing and diverse US population of women.¹ Furthermore, approximately 1 in every 3 ObGyns will move usually once or twice every 10 years.² Knowing what to expect in being recruited requires a better understanding of your needs and capabilities and what they may be worth in real time. Some ObGyns elect to use a recruitment firm to begin their search to more objectively assess what is fair and equitable.

Understanding physician compensation involves many factors, such as patient composition, sources of reimbursement, impact of health care systems, and geography.³ Several sources report trends in annual physician compensation, most notably the American Medical Association, medical specialty organizations, and recruitment firms. Sources such as the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), the American Medical Group Association (AMGA), and Medscape report total compensation.

Determining salaries for new positions

A standard and comprehensive benchmarking resource for salaries in new positions has been the annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives by AMN Healthcare (formerly Merritt Hawkins) Physician Solutions.⁴ This resource is used by hospitals, medical groups, academics, other health care systems, and others who track trends in physician supply, demand, and compensation. Their 2023 report considered starting salaries for more than 20 medical or surgical specialties.

Specialists’ revenue-generating potential is tracked by annual billings to commercial payers. The average annual billing by a full-time ObGyn ($3.8 million) is about the same as that of other specialties combined.⁵ As in the past, ObGyns are among the most consistently requested specialists in searches. In 2023, ObGyns were ranked the third most common physician specialists being recruited and tenth as the percentage of physicians per specialty (TABLE).⁴

Full-time salaries for ObGyns have remained within the middle third of all specialties. They consistently have been higher than primary care physicians’ salaries but remain among the lowest of the surgical specialties. This impression is reinforced by 2023 data shown in FIGURE 1.⁴ In the past, salaries remained flat compared with other surgical specialties. As with other specialties, starting salaries decreased during the peak 2020 and 2021 COVID-19 years. It is encouraging that averaged full-time salaries for recruiting ObGyns increased by 14.1% from 2020–2021 to 2021–2022 and by 10.5% from 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 (FIGURE 2).⁴

Special considerations

Incomes tended to be highest for ObGyns practicing in metropolitan areas with population sizes less than 1 million rather than in larger metropolitan areas.³ However, differences in reported incomes do not control for cost of living and other determinants of income (for example, surgeries, deliveries, patient care hours worked). Averaged salaries can vary regionally in the following order from highest to lowest: Midwest/Great Plains, West, Southwest, and Northeast and Southeast.⁴

Differences in starting salaries between male and female ObGyns are often not reported, although they are a very important consideration.^6,7 Both men and women desire “controllable lifestyles” with more flexibility and working in shifts. Sex-based differences in physician salary and compensation can be complex. Explanations may deal with the number of patients seen, number of procedures and surgeries performed, and frequency of after-hours duties. Women constitute most ObGyns, and their salary being at any lower end of the income spectrum may be partially explained by fewer desired work hours or less seniority.

Annual earnings can vary and are positively related to the number of working hours, being in the middle of one’s career (aged 42–51 years), working in a moderately large practice rather than in a solo or self-employed practice, and being board certified.³ A lower starting salary would be anticipated for a recent graduate. However, the resident going into a hard-to-fill position may be offered a higher salary than an experienced ObGyn who takes a relatively easy-to-fill position in a popular location. Practices would be more desirable in which patient volume is sufficient to invest in nonphysician clinicians and revenue-generating ancillary services that do not require costly layers of administration.

Information on physician salaries for new positions from individual recruiting or research firms can serve as a starting point for negotiation, although it may not entirely be representative. Sample sizes can be small, and information in some specialties may not separate salaries of physicians in academic versus nonacademic positions and generalists versus subspecialists. The information in this article reflects the average salaries offered to attract physicians to new practice settings rather than what they might earn and report on their tax return.

Continue to: Incentives...

Incentives

Negotiations involve incentives along with a starting salary. Signing bonuses, movingallowances, continuing education time and allowances, and medical education loan repayments are important incentives. Recent signing bonuses (average, $37,472) likely reflect efforts to bring physicians back to health care facilities post-COVID-19 or, more commonly, when candidates are considering multiple opportunities.⁴ It is important to clarify at the beginning any coverage for health insurance and professional liability insurance.

Relocation allowances are for those being recruited outside their current area of residence. The average continuing medical education allowance was $3,840 in 2023.⁴ Medical school debt is common, being approximately $200,000 at graduation for many. An educational loan repayment (average, $98,665) is typically an exchange for a commitment to stay in the community for a given period.

Starting employment contracts with hospitals or large medical groups often feature a production bonus to reward additional clinical work performed or an adherence to quality protocol or guidelines, rather than income guarantees alone. Metrics are usually volume driven (for example, relative value units, net collections, gross billings, patients seen). Initiatives by payers and health care organizations have included quality metrics, such as high patient satisfaction scores, low morbidity rates, and low readmission rates. Production-based formulas are straightforward, while use of quality-based formulas (up to 14% of total compensation) can be less clear to define.⁴ ●

Evidence continues to show that the number of practicing ObGyns lags the growing and diverse US population of women.¹ Furthermore, approximately 1 in every 3 ObGyns will move usually once or twice every 10 years.² Knowing what to expect in being recruited requires a better understanding of your needs and capabilities and what they may be worth in real time. Some ObGyns elect to use a recruitment firm to begin their search to more objectively assess what is fair and equitable.

Understanding physician compensation involves many factors, such as patient composition, sources of reimbursement, impact of health care systems, and geography.³ Several sources report trends in annual physician compensation, most notably the American Medical Association, medical specialty organizations, and recruitment firms. Sources such as the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), the American Medical Group Association (AMGA), and Medscape report total compensation.

Determining salaries for new positions

A standard and comprehensive benchmarking resource for salaries in new positions has been the annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives by AMN Healthcare (formerly Merritt Hawkins) Physician Solutions.⁴ This resource is used by hospitals, medical groups, academics, other health care systems, and others who track trends in physician supply, demand, and compensation. Their 2023 report considered starting salaries for more than 20 medical or surgical specialties.

Specialists’ revenue-generating potential is tracked by annual billings to commercial payers. The average annual billing by a full-time ObGyn ($3.8 million) is about the same as that of other specialties combined.⁵ As in the past, ObGyns are among the most consistently requested specialists in searches. In 2023, ObGyns were ranked the third most common physician specialists being recruited and tenth as the percentage of physicians per specialty (TABLE).⁴

Full-time salaries for ObGyns have remained within the middle third of all specialties. They consistently have been higher than primary care physicians’ salaries but remain among the lowest of the surgical specialties. This impression is reinforced by 2023 data shown in FIGURE 1.⁴ In the past, salaries remained flat compared with other surgical specialties. As with other specialties, starting salaries decreased during the peak 2020 and 2021 COVID-19 years. It is encouraging that averaged full-time salaries for recruiting ObGyns increased by 14.1% from 2020–2021 to 2021–2022 and by 10.5% from 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 (FIGURE 2).⁴

Special considerations

Incomes tended to be highest for ObGyns practicing in metropolitan areas with population sizes less than 1 million rather than in larger metropolitan areas.³ However, differences in reported incomes do not control for cost of living and other determinants of income (for example, surgeries, deliveries, patient care hours worked). Averaged salaries can vary regionally in the following order from highest to lowest: Midwest/Great Plains, West, Southwest, and Northeast and Southeast.⁴

Differences in starting salaries between male and female ObGyns are often not reported, although they are a very important consideration.^6,7 Both men and women desire “controllable lifestyles” with more flexibility and working in shifts. Sex-based differences in physician salary and compensation can be complex. Explanations may deal with the number of patients seen, number of procedures and surgeries performed, and frequency of after-hours duties. Women constitute most ObGyns, and their salary being at any lower end of the income spectrum may be partially explained by fewer desired work hours or less seniority.

Annual earnings can vary and are positively related to the number of working hours, being in the middle of one’s career (aged 42–51 years), working in a moderately large practice rather than in a solo or self-employed practice, and being board certified.³ A lower starting salary would be anticipated for a recent graduate. However, the resident going into a hard-to-fill position may be offered a higher salary than an experienced ObGyn who takes a relatively easy-to-fill position in a popular location. Practices would be more desirable in which patient volume is sufficient to invest in nonphysician clinicians and revenue-generating ancillary services that do not require costly layers of administration.

Information on physician salaries for new positions from individual recruiting or research firms can serve as a starting point for negotiation, although it may not entirely be representative. Sample sizes can be small, and information in some specialties may not separate salaries of physicians in academic versus nonacademic positions and generalists versus subspecialists. The information in this article reflects the average salaries offered to attract physicians to new practice settings rather than what they might earn and report on their tax return.

Continue to: Incentives...

Incentives

Negotiations involve incentives along with a starting salary. Signing bonuses, movingallowances, continuing education time and allowances, and medical education loan repayments are important incentives. Recent signing bonuses (average, $37,472) likely reflect efforts to bring physicians back to health care facilities post-COVID-19 or, more commonly, when candidates are considering multiple opportunities.⁴ It is important to clarify at the beginning any coverage for health insurance and professional liability insurance.

Relocation allowances are for those being recruited outside their current area of residence. The average continuing medical education allowance was $3,840 in 2023.⁴ Medical school debt is common, being approximately $200,000 at graduation for many. An educational loan repayment (average, $98,665) is typically an exchange for a commitment to stay in the community for a given period.

Starting employment contracts with hospitals or large medical groups often feature a production bonus to reward additional clinical work performed or an adherence to quality protocol or guidelines, rather than income guarantees alone. Metrics are usually volume driven (for example, relative value units, net collections, gross billings, patients seen). Initiatives by payers and health care organizations have included quality metrics, such as high patient satisfaction scores, low morbidity rates, and low readmission rates. Production-based formulas are straightforward, while use of quality-based formulas (up to 14% of total compensation) can be less clear to define.⁴ ●

Breast cancer represents the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the nation.¹ However, unlike other cancers, most breast cancers are identified at stage I and have a 90% survival rate 5-year prognosis.² These outcomes are attributable to various factors, one of the most significant being screening mammography—a largely accessible, highly sensitive and specific screening tool.³ Data demonstrate that malignant tumors detected on screening mammography have more favorable profiles in tumor size and nodal status compared with symptomatic breast cancers,⁴ which make it critical for early diagnosis. Most importantly, the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that screening mammography decreases breast cancer–related mortality.^5-7

The USPSTF big change: Mammography starting at age 40 for all recommended

Despite the general accessibility and mortality benefits of screening mammography (in light of the high lifetime 12% prevalence of breast cancer in the United States⁸), recommendations still conflict across medical societies regarding optimal timing and frequency.^9-12 Previously, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that screening mammography should occur at age 50 biennially and that screening between ages 40 and 49 should be an individualized decision.^13,14 In the draft recommendation statement issued on May 9, 2023, however, the USPSTF now recommends screening every other year starting at age 40 to decrease the risk of dying from breast cancer.¹⁵

This change represents a critically important shift. The new guidance:

• acknowledges the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer
• reinforces a national consciousness toward screening mammography in decreasing mortality,17 even among a younger age group for whom the perception of risk may be lower.

The USPSTF statement represents a significant change in how patients should be counseled. Practitioners now have more direct guidance that is concordant with what other national medical organizations offer or recommend, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

However, while the USPSTF statement can and should encourage health care practitioners to initiate mammography earlier than prior recommendations, ongoing discussion regarding the optimal screening interval is warranted. The USPSTF recommendations state that mammography should be performed biennially. While the age at initiation represents a step in the right direction, this recommended screening interval should be reevaluated.

Annual vs biennial screening?

The debate between annual and biennial screening mammography is not new. While many randomized trials on screening mammography have evaluated such factors as breast cancer mortality by age or rate of false positives,¹⁸ fewer trials have evaluated the optimal screening interval.

One randomized trial from the United Kingdom evaluated 99,389 people aged 50 to 62 from 1989 to 1996 who underwent annual screening (study arm) versus 3 years later (control).¹⁹ Findings demonstrated a significantly smaller tumor size in the study arm (P=.05) as well as an increased total cancer detection rate. However, the authors concluded that shortening the screening interval (from 3 years) would not yield a statistically significant decrease in mortality.¹⁹

In a randomized trial from Finland, researchers screened those aged older than 50 at biennial intervals and those aged younger than 50 at either annual or triennial intervals.²⁰ Results demonstrated that, among those aged 40 to 49, the frequency of stage I cancers was not significantly different from screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, or cancers detected outside of screening (50%, 42%, and 44%, respectively; P=.73). Furthermore, there was a greater likelihood of interval cancers among those aged 40 to 49 at 1-year (27%) and 3-year (39%) screening intervals compared with those aged older than 50 screened biennially (18%; P=.08 and P=.0009, respectively).²⁰

These randomized trials, however, have been scrutinized because of factors such as discrepancies in screening intervals by country as well as substantial improvements made in screening mammography since the time these trials were conducted.⁵ Due to the dearth of more contemporary randomized controlled trials accounting for more up-to-date training and technology, most of the more recent data has been largely observational, retrospective, or used modeling.²¹ The TABLE outlines some of the major studies on this topic.

False-positive results, biopsy rates. The arguments against more frequent screening include the possibility of false positives that require callbacks and biopsies, which may be more frequent among those who undergo annual mammography.²² A systematic review from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium demonstrated a 61.3% annual (confidence interval [CI], 59.4%–63.1%) versus 41.6% biennial (CI, 40.6%–42.5%) false-positive rate, resulting in a 7% (CI, 6.1%–7.8%) versus 4.8% (CI, 4.4–5.2%) rate of biopsy, respectively.²³ This false-positive rate, however, also may be increased in younger patients aged 40 to 49 and in those with dense breasts.^22,24 These callbacks and biopsies could induce significant patient stress, pain, and anxiety, as well as carry financial implications related to subsequent diagnostic imaging.

Overdiagnosis. There is also the risk of overdiagnosis, in which an indolent breast cancer that otherwise would not grow or progress to become symptomatic is identified. This could lead to overtreatment. While the exact incidence of overdiagnosis is unclear (due to recommendations for universal treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ), some data suggest that overdiagnosis could be decreased with biennial screening.²⁵

While discomfort could also be a barrier, it may not necessarily be prohibitive for some to continue with future screening mammograms.²² Further, increased radiation with annual mammography is a concern. However, modeling studies have shown that the mortality benefit for annual mammography starting at age 40 outweighs (by 60-fold) the mortality risk from a radiation-induced breast cancer.²⁶

Benefit from biennial screening

Some research suggests overall benefit from biennial screening. One study that used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer microsimulation was adapted to measure the incidence, mortality, and life-years gained for Canadian patients.²⁷ This model demonstrated that mortality reduction was linked to greater lifetime screens for breast cancer, but this applied primarily to patients aged 50 and older. Overall, a larger impact was observed by initiating screening at age 40 than by decreasing screening intervals.²⁷

Using modeling, Mandelblatt and colleagues demonstrated that biennial screening could capture most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm.²⁸ In another study in 2016, Mandelblatt and colleagues used updated and revised versions of these simulation models and maintained that biennial screening upheld 79.8% to 81.3% of the benefits of annual screening mammography but with fewer overdiagnoses and false-positive results.²⁵ The authors concluded that while biennial screening is equally effective for average-risk populations, there should be an evaluation of benefits and harms based on the clinical scenario (suggesting that annual screening for those at age 40 who carried elevated risk was similar to biennial screening for average-risk patients starting at age 50).²⁵

Another study that served to inform the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer recommendations evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational and modeling studies that assessed breast screening intervals.²⁹ The authors concluded that each screening interval has risks and benefits, with data suggesting more benefit with biennial screening for people aged 50 to 69 years and more possible harm with annual screening in younger people (aged 45–49).²⁹

Continue to: Benefit from annual screening...

However, these data conflict with other studies that demonstrate the benefit of annual compared with biennial screening mammography. One large retrospective review of prospectively collected data evaluated outcome differences based on mammography frequency.³⁰ For those undergoing annual versus biennial screening, the median tumor size was 11 mm (versus 15 mm), the percentage of lymph node metastasis was 14% (versus 24%), and cancer stage II or higher was 17% (versus 29%). The study overall demonstrated that annual screening resulted in lower recall rates (P<.0001) and detection of smaller tumors that carried a more favorable prognosis (P<.04).³⁰

Another observational study from 2004 that assessed data from 7 different mammography registries nationwide noted that, among those aged 40 to 49, patients who underwent biennial screening had an increased likelihood of late-stage disease compared with those with annual screening (28% vs 21%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01–1.81), although this discrepancy was not observed in people aged 50 or older.³¹

A study that critiqued the previous 2012 version of the USPSTF guidelines used CISNET modeling, which demonstrated a 39.6% mortality reduction with annual screening for those aged 40 to 84 versus 23.2% for biennial screening for those aged 50 to 74.⁵

More recent data also reflect these findings. A retrospective cohort study that evaluated patients aged 40 to 84 diagnosed with breast cancer found that those who previously underwent annual versus biennial screening mammography had lower incidences of late-stage diagnoses (24.0% vs 43.8%, respectively; P=.02), fewer interval cancers (10.5% vs 37.5%; P<.001), and smaller mean (SD) tumor diameter (1.4 [1.2] cm vs 1.8 [1.6] cm; P=.04).²¹ Postmenopausal patients in this cohort also demonstrated similar findings when comparing mammogram frequency. Although not significant, biennial (or greater) frequency of screening mammography also resulted in an increased likelihood of axillary lymph node dissection and chemotherapy.

Similarly, authors of another large prospective cohort study concluded that breast cancers diagnosed in premenopausal patients were more likely to be larger with less favorable prognostic characteristics (tumor size >15 mm, relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.37]; P=.002); any less favorable prognostic characteristics (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00–1.22]; P=.047), and higher stage (stage IIB or higher, RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01–1.63]; P=.04) for those who underwent biennial screening compared with breast cancers diagnosed by annual screening.³² However, this trend was not observed in postmenopausal patients not taking hormone therapy.³²

Some international studies also show more favorable outcomes with annual screening mammography. A Swedish study evaluated mammography screening intervals of 21 months compared with 18 or 12 months in patients aged 40 to 49.³³ Data showed an improved effectiveness of 1.6% to 9.8% for interval cancers and 2.9% to 17.4% for both interval and screening-detected cancers by reducing the screening frequency to 12 months, with authors suggesting a further reduction in breast cancer–related mortality rates for this age group.³³

Results from another descriptive study from Europe also showed increasing interval breast cancer rates with increasing screening intervals.³⁴ After a negative screen, the interval cancer rates and regional ranges for 0 to less than 12 months, 12 to less than 24 months, and 24 to less than 36 months per 1,000 screened were 0.55 (0.43–0.76), 1.13 (0.92–1.47), and 1.22 (0.93–1.57), respectively.³⁴

Finally, a study conducted in Canada evaluated interval breast cancers among people with dense breasts screened between 2008 and 2010.³⁵ Those with screening programs with policies that offered annual screening reported fewer interval cancers (interval cancer rate, 0.89 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.67–1.11) compared with those who had policies that used biennial screening (interval cancer rate, 1.45 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 1.19–1.72), which was 63% higher (P=.002). For those for whom radiologists recommended screening, interval cancer was lower for annual (0.93 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.71–1.16) versus biennial screening (1.70 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 0.70–2.71) (P=.061).³⁵

Continue to: Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis...

Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis

Additional consideration should be given to populations with worse survival outcomes at baseline for whom screening mammography could play a significant role. In particular, Black people have similar rates of breast cancer compared with White people (127.8 cases per 100,000 vs 133.7 cases per 100,000, respectively) but have a 40% increased breast cancer–related mortality.⁸ The USPSTF recognizes this disparity and mentions it in their recommendations, encouraging health care clinicians to engage in shared decision making with Black patients and asserting that more research is needed on screening mammography in Black communities.¹⁵

While the age modification to the new guidelines better addresses the disparities that impact the Black community (such as increased likelihood of early-onset breast cancer³⁶ and increased rate of breast cancer diagnosis at first mammogram³⁷), the next obvious question is: Can groups with higher breast cancer mortality such as Black communities afford to undergo mammography every 2 years (as opposed to every year)?

Although some data specifically have evaluated the age of initiation and frequency of screening mammography among Black patients,^38,39 little data have specifically assessed outcomes for annual versus biennial screening among Black people. Despite these research gaps, risk factors among the Black community should be considered. There is an increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer that can contribute to higher mortality among Black communities.⁴⁰ Black people also tend to be diagnosed with more aggressive subtypes overall,^41,42 are more likely to have dense breasts,^43,44 have a higher likelihood of advanced stages at the time of diagnosis compared with White people,^8,45 and have a greater chance of diagnosis of a second primary or contralateral breast cancer^46-48—all risk factors that support the importance of regular and early-screening mammography.

How I counsel my patients

As Director of the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic, I am a gynecologist who primarily evaluates patients at increased risk for breast cancer (and other cancers). As an initial step, I strongly encourage all patients (especially Black patients and those of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as per the American College of Radiology recommendations⁹) to undergo risk assessment at age 25 to determine if they may be at increased risk for breast cancer. This first step may include genetic testing if the patient meets NCCN testing criteria based on personal or family history. If results are positive for a germline pathogenic variant, the timing and nature of breast screening would be based on NCCN recommendations for that particular variant (with possible modification of age of initiation based on family history). If testing is negative, lifetime risk assessment would then be performed using risk calculators—such as Tyrer-Cuzick—to determine if the patient meets criteria for intensive surveillance with supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging. If the patient is subsequently determined to be at average risk after these assessments, I recommend they undergo screening mammography annually starting at age 40. However, it must be recognized that risk may change over time. A patient’s risk can continue to be assessed over a lifetime—with changing family history, personal risk factors, and new discoveries in genetics.

Summary

Ultimately, it is reassuring that the USPSTF guidelines have been updated to be concordant with other national medical society recommendations. They reflect the increasing nationwide trends that clearly demonstrate the high overall prevalence of breast cancer as well as the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer.

The updated guidelines, however, do not reflect the entirety of breast cancer trends in this country. With breast cancer being the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, it is imperative to consider the data that demonstrate improved prognostics with annual compared with biennial mammography. Furthermore, the guidelines only begin to explore the disparities that Black patients face regarding breast cancer–related mortality. The risks of younger age at diagnosis, greater likelihood of aggressive subtypes, increased risk of second primary and contralateral breast cancer, and later stage at diagnosis must be seriously evaluated when counseling this patient population.

While the USPSTF recommendations for age at initiation reflect national statistics, recommendations by the ACR and NCCN more appropriately recognize that the benefits of annual screening outweigh the potential risks. Annual screening frequency should be adopted when counseling patients, particularly for the Black community. ●

Breast cancer represents the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the nation.¹ However, unlike other cancers, most breast cancers are identified at stage I and have a 90% survival rate 5-year prognosis.² These outcomes are attributable to various factors, one of the most significant being screening mammography—a largely accessible, highly sensitive and specific screening tool.³ Data demonstrate that malignant tumors detected on screening mammography have more favorable profiles in tumor size and nodal status compared with symptomatic breast cancers,⁴ which make it critical for early diagnosis. Most importantly, the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that screening mammography decreases breast cancer–related mortality.^5-7

The USPSTF big change: Mammography starting at age 40 for all recommended

Despite the general accessibility and mortality benefits of screening mammography (in light of the high lifetime 12% prevalence of breast cancer in the United States⁸), recommendations still conflict across medical societies regarding optimal timing and frequency.^9-12 Previously, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that screening mammography should occur at age 50 biennially and that screening between ages 40 and 49 should be an individualized decision.^13,14 In the draft recommendation statement issued on May 9, 2023, however, the USPSTF now recommends screening every other year starting at age 40 to decrease the risk of dying from breast cancer.¹⁵

This change represents a critically important shift. The new guidance:

• acknowledges the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer
• reinforces a national consciousness toward screening mammography in decreasing mortality,17 even among a younger age group for whom the perception of risk may be lower.

The USPSTF statement represents a significant change in how patients should be counseled. Practitioners now have more direct guidance that is concordant with what other national medical organizations offer or recommend, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

However, while the USPSTF statement can and should encourage health care practitioners to initiate mammography earlier than prior recommendations, ongoing discussion regarding the optimal screening interval is warranted. The USPSTF recommendations state that mammography should be performed biennially. While the age at initiation represents a step in the right direction, this recommended screening interval should be reevaluated.

Annual vs biennial screening?

The debate between annual and biennial screening mammography is not new. While many randomized trials on screening mammography have evaluated such factors as breast cancer mortality by age or rate of false positives,¹⁸ fewer trials have evaluated the optimal screening interval.

One randomized trial from the United Kingdom evaluated 99,389 people aged 50 to 62 from 1989 to 1996 who underwent annual screening (study arm) versus 3 years later (control).¹⁹ Findings demonstrated a significantly smaller tumor size in the study arm (P=.05) as well as an increased total cancer detection rate. However, the authors concluded that shortening the screening interval (from 3 years) would not yield a statistically significant decrease in mortality.¹⁹

In a randomized trial from Finland, researchers screened those aged older than 50 at biennial intervals and those aged younger than 50 at either annual or triennial intervals.²⁰ Results demonstrated that, among those aged 40 to 49, the frequency of stage I cancers was not significantly different from screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, or cancers detected outside of screening (50%, 42%, and 44%, respectively; P=.73). Furthermore, there was a greater likelihood of interval cancers among those aged 40 to 49 at 1-year (27%) and 3-year (39%) screening intervals compared with those aged older than 50 screened biennially (18%; P=.08 and P=.0009, respectively).²⁰

These randomized trials, however, have been scrutinized because of factors such as discrepancies in screening intervals by country as well as substantial improvements made in screening mammography since the time these trials were conducted.⁵ Due to the dearth of more contemporary randomized controlled trials accounting for more up-to-date training and technology, most of the more recent data has been largely observational, retrospective, or used modeling.²¹ The TABLE outlines some of the major studies on this topic.

False-positive results, biopsy rates. The arguments against more frequent screening include the possibility of false positives that require callbacks and biopsies, which may be more frequent among those who undergo annual mammography.²² A systematic review from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium demonstrated a 61.3% annual (confidence interval [CI], 59.4%–63.1%) versus 41.6% biennial (CI, 40.6%–42.5%) false-positive rate, resulting in a 7% (CI, 6.1%–7.8%) versus 4.8% (CI, 4.4–5.2%) rate of biopsy, respectively.²³ This false-positive rate, however, also may be increased in younger patients aged 40 to 49 and in those with dense breasts.^22,24 These callbacks and biopsies could induce significant patient stress, pain, and anxiety, as well as carry financial implications related to subsequent diagnostic imaging.

Overdiagnosis. There is also the risk of overdiagnosis, in which an indolent breast cancer that otherwise would not grow or progress to become symptomatic is identified. This could lead to overtreatment. While the exact incidence of overdiagnosis is unclear (due to recommendations for universal treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ), some data suggest that overdiagnosis could be decreased with biennial screening.²⁵

While discomfort could also be a barrier, it may not necessarily be prohibitive for some to continue with future screening mammograms.²² Further, increased radiation with annual mammography is a concern. However, modeling studies have shown that the mortality benefit for annual mammography starting at age 40 outweighs (by 60-fold) the mortality risk from a radiation-induced breast cancer.²⁶

Benefit from biennial screening

Some research suggests overall benefit from biennial screening. One study that used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer microsimulation was adapted to measure the incidence, mortality, and life-years gained for Canadian patients.²⁷ This model demonstrated that mortality reduction was linked to greater lifetime screens for breast cancer, but this applied primarily to patients aged 50 and older. Overall, a larger impact was observed by initiating screening at age 40 than by decreasing screening intervals.²⁷

Using modeling, Mandelblatt and colleagues demonstrated that biennial screening could capture most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm.²⁸ In another study in 2016, Mandelblatt and colleagues used updated and revised versions of these simulation models and maintained that biennial screening upheld 79.8% to 81.3% of the benefits of annual screening mammography but with fewer overdiagnoses and false-positive results.²⁵ The authors concluded that while biennial screening is equally effective for average-risk populations, there should be an evaluation of benefits and harms based on the clinical scenario (suggesting that annual screening for those at age 40 who carried elevated risk was similar to biennial screening for average-risk patients starting at age 50).²⁵

Another study that served to inform the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer recommendations evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational and modeling studies that assessed breast screening intervals.²⁹ The authors concluded that each screening interval has risks and benefits, with data suggesting more benefit with biennial screening for people aged 50 to 69 years and more possible harm with annual screening in younger people (aged 45–49).²⁹

Continue to: Benefit from annual screening...

However, these data conflict with other studies that demonstrate the benefit of annual compared with biennial screening mammography. One large retrospective review of prospectively collected data evaluated outcome differences based on mammography frequency.³⁰ For those undergoing annual versus biennial screening, the median tumor size was 11 mm (versus 15 mm), the percentage of lymph node metastasis was 14% (versus 24%), and cancer stage II or higher was 17% (versus 29%). The study overall demonstrated that annual screening resulted in lower recall rates (P<.0001) and detection of smaller tumors that carried a more favorable prognosis (P<.04).³⁰

Another observational study from 2004 that assessed data from 7 different mammography registries nationwide noted that, among those aged 40 to 49, patients who underwent biennial screening had an increased likelihood of late-stage disease compared with those with annual screening (28% vs 21%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01–1.81), although this discrepancy was not observed in people aged 50 or older.³¹

A study that critiqued the previous 2012 version of the USPSTF guidelines used CISNET modeling, which demonstrated a 39.6% mortality reduction with annual screening for those aged 40 to 84 versus 23.2% for biennial screening for those aged 50 to 74.⁵

More recent data also reflect these findings. A retrospective cohort study that evaluated patients aged 40 to 84 diagnosed with breast cancer found that those who previously underwent annual versus biennial screening mammography had lower incidences of late-stage diagnoses (24.0% vs 43.8%, respectively; P=.02), fewer interval cancers (10.5% vs 37.5%; P<.001), and smaller mean (SD) tumor diameter (1.4 [1.2] cm vs 1.8 [1.6] cm; P=.04).²¹ Postmenopausal patients in this cohort also demonstrated similar findings when comparing mammogram frequency. Although not significant, biennial (or greater) frequency of screening mammography also resulted in an increased likelihood of axillary lymph node dissection and chemotherapy.

Similarly, authors of another large prospective cohort study concluded that breast cancers diagnosed in premenopausal patients were more likely to be larger with less favorable prognostic characteristics (tumor size >15 mm, relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.37]; P=.002); any less favorable prognostic characteristics (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00–1.22]; P=.047), and higher stage (stage IIB or higher, RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01–1.63]; P=.04) for those who underwent biennial screening compared with breast cancers diagnosed by annual screening.³² However, this trend was not observed in postmenopausal patients not taking hormone therapy.³²

Some international studies also show more favorable outcomes with annual screening mammography. A Swedish study evaluated mammography screening intervals of 21 months compared with 18 or 12 months in patients aged 40 to 49.³³ Data showed an improved effectiveness of 1.6% to 9.8% for interval cancers and 2.9% to 17.4% for both interval and screening-detected cancers by reducing the screening frequency to 12 months, with authors suggesting a further reduction in breast cancer–related mortality rates for this age group.³³

Results from another descriptive study from Europe also showed increasing interval breast cancer rates with increasing screening intervals.³⁴ After a negative screen, the interval cancer rates and regional ranges for 0 to less than 12 months, 12 to less than 24 months, and 24 to less than 36 months per 1,000 screened were 0.55 (0.43–0.76), 1.13 (0.92–1.47), and 1.22 (0.93–1.57), respectively.³⁴

Finally, a study conducted in Canada evaluated interval breast cancers among people with dense breasts screened between 2008 and 2010.³⁵ Those with screening programs with policies that offered annual screening reported fewer interval cancers (interval cancer rate, 0.89 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.67–1.11) compared with those who had policies that used biennial screening (interval cancer rate, 1.45 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 1.19–1.72), which was 63% higher (P=.002). For those for whom radiologists recommended screening, interval cancer was lower for annual (0.93 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.71–1.16) versus biennial screening (1.70 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 0.70–2.71) (P=.061).³⁵

Continue to: Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis...

Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis

Additional consideration should be given to populations with worse survival outcomes at baseline for whom screening mammography could play a significant role. In particular, Black people have similar rates of breast cancer compared with White people (127.8 cases per 100,000 vs 133.7 cases per 100,000, respectively) but have a 40% increased breast cancer–related mortality.⁸ The USPSTF recognizes this disparity and mentions it in their recommendations, encouraging health care clinicians to engage in shared decision making with Black patients and asserting that more research is needed on screening mammography in Black communities.¹⁵

While the age modification to the new guidelines better addresses the disparities that impact the Black community (such as increased likelihood of early-onset breast cancer³⁶ and increased rate of breast cancer diagnosis at first mammogram³⁷), the next obvious question is: Can groups with higher breast cancer mortality such as Black communities afford to undergo mammography every 2 years (as opposed to every year)?

Although some data specifically have evaluated the age of initiation and frequency of screening mammography among Black patients,^38,39 little data have specifically assessed outcomes for annual versus biennial screening among Black people. Despite these research gaps, risk factors among the Black community should be considered. There is an increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer that can contribute to higher mortality among Black communities.⁴⁰ Black people also tend to be diagnosed with more aggressive subtypes overall,^41,42 are more likely to have dense breasts,^43,44 have a higher likelihood of advanced stages at the time of diagnosis compared with White people,^8,45 and have a greater chance of diagnosis of a second primary or contralateral breast cancer^46-48—all risk factors that support the importance of regular and early-screening mammography.

How I counsel my patients

As Director of the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic, I am a gynecologist who primarily evaluates patients at increased risk for breast cancer (and other cancers). As an initial step, I strongly encourage all patients (especially Black patients and those of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as per the American College of Radiology recommendations⁹) to undergo risk assessment at age 25 to determine if they may be at increased risk for breast cancer. This first step may include genetic testing if the patient meets NCCN testing criteria based on personal or family history. If results are positive for a germline pathogenic variant, the timing and nature of breast screening would be based on NCCN recommendations for that particular variant (with possible modification of age of initiation based on family history). If testing is negative, lifetime risk assessment would then be performed using risk calculators—such as Tyrer-Cuzick—to determine if the patient meets criteria for intensive surveillance with supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging. If the patient is subsequently determined to be at average risk after these assessments, I recommend they undergo screening mammography annually starting at age 40. However, it must be recognized that risk may change over time. A patient’s risk can continue to be assessed over a lifetime—with changing family history, personal risk factors, and new discoveries in genetics.

Summary

Ultimately, it is reassuring that the USPSTF guidelines have been updated to be concordant with other national medical society recommendations. They reflect the increasing nationwide trends that clearly demonstrate the high overall prevalence of breast cancer as well as the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer.

The updated guidelines, however, do not reflect the entirety of breast cancer trends in this country. With breast cancer being the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, it is imperative to consider the data that demonstrate improved prognostics with annual compared with biennial mammography. Furthermore, the guidelines only begin to explore the disparities that Black patients face regarding breast cancer–related mortality. The risks of younger age at diagnosis, greater likelihood of aggressive subtypes, increased risk of second primary and contralateral breast cancer, and later stage at diagnosis must be seriously evaluated when counseling this patient population.

While the USPSTF recommendations for age at initiation reflect national statistics, recommendations by the ACR and NCCN more appropriately recognize that the benefits of annual screening outweigh the potential risks. Annual screening frequency should be adopted when counseling patients, particularly for the Black community. ●

Breast cancer represents the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the nation.¹ However, unlike other cancers, most breast cancers are identified at stage I and have a 90% survival rate 5-year prognosis.² These outcomes are attributable to various factors, one of the most significant being screening mammography—a largely accessible, highly sensitive and specific screening tool.³ Data demonstrate that malignant tumors detected on screening mammography have more favorable profiles in tumor size and nodal status compared with symptomatic breast cancers,⁴ which make it critical for early diagnosis. Most importantly, the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that screening mammography decreases breast cancer–related mortality.^5-7

The USPSTF big change: Mammography starting at age 40 for all recommended

Despite the general accessibility and mortality benefits of screening mammography (in light of the high lifetime 12% prevalence of breast cancer in the United States⁸), recommendations still conflict across medical societies regarding optimal timing and frequency.^9-12 Previously, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that screening mammography should occur at age 50 biennially and that screening between ages 40 and 49 should be an individualized decision.^13,14 In the draft recommendation statement issued on May 9, 2023, however, the USPSTF now recommends screening every other year starting at age 40 to decrease the risk of dying from breast cancer.¹⁵

This change represents a critically important shift. The new guidance:

• acknowledges the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer
• reinforces a national consciousness toward screening mammography in decreasing mortality,17 even among a younger age group for whom the perception of risk may be lower.

The USPSTF statement represents a significant change in how patients should be counseled. Practitioners now have more direct guidance that is concordant with what other national medical organizations offer or recommend, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

However, while the USPSTF statement can and should encourage health care practitioners to initiate mammography earlier than prior recommendations, ongoing discussion regarding the optimal screening interval is warranted. The USPSTF recommendations state that mammography should be performed biennially. While the age at initiation represents a step in the right direction, this recommended screening interval should be reevaluated.

Annual vs biennial screening?

The debate between annual and biennial screening mammography is not new. While many randomized trials on screening mammography have evaluated such factors as breast cancer mortality by age or rate of false positives,¹⁸ fewer trials have evaluated the optimal screening interval.

One randomized trial from the United Kingdom evaluated 99,389 people aged 50 to 62 from 1989 to 1996 who underwent annual screening (study arm) versus 3 years later (control).¹⁹ Findings demonstrated a significantly smaller tumor size in the study arm (P=.05) as well as an increased total cancer detection rate. However, the authors concluded that shortening the screening interval (from 3 years) would not yield a statistically significant decrease in mortality.¹⁹

In a randomized trial from Finland, researchers screened those aged older than 50 at biennial intervals and those aged younger than 50 at either annual or triennial intervals.²⁰ Results demonstrated that, among those aged 40 to 49, the frequency of stage I cancers was not significantly different from screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, or cancers detected outside of screening (50%, 42%, and 44%, respectively; P=.73). Furthermore, there was a greater likelihood of interval cancers among those aged 40 to 49 at 1-year (27%) and 3-year (39%) screening intervals compared with those aged older than 50 screened biennially (18%; P=.08 and P=.0009, respectively).²⁰

These randomized trials, however, have been scrutinized because of factors such as discrepancies in screening intervals by country as well as substantial improvements made in screening mammography since the time these trials were conducted.⁵ Due to the dearth of more contemporary randomized controlled trials accounting for more up-to-date training and technology, most of the more recent data has been largely observational, retrospective, or used modeling.²¹ The TABLE outlines some of the major studies on this topic.

False-positive results, biopsy rates. The arguments against more frequent screening include the possibility of false positives that require callbacks and biopsies, which may be more frequent among those who undergo annual mammography.²² A systematic review from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium demonstrated a 61.3% annual (confidence interval [CI], 59.4%–63.1%) versus 41.6% biennial (CI, 40.6%–42.5%) false-positive rate, resulting in a 7% (CI, 6.1%–7.8%) versus 4.8% (CI, 4.4–5.2%) rate of biopsy, respectively.²³ This false-positive rate, however, also may be increased in younger patients aged 40 to 49 and in those with dense breasts.^22,24 These callbacks and biopsies could induce significant patient stress, pain, and anxiety, as well as carry financial implications related to subsequent diagnostic imaging.

Overdiagnosis. There is also the risk of overdiagnosis, in which an indolent breast cancer that otherwise would not grow or progress to become symptomatic is identified. This could lead to overtreatment. While the exact incidence of overdiagnosis is unclear (due to recommendations for universal treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ), some data suggest that overdiagnosis could be decreased with biennial screening.²⁵

While discomfort could also be a barrier, it may not necessarily be prohibitive for some to continue with future screening mammograms.²² Further, increased radiation with annual mammography is a concern. However, modeling studies have shown that the mortality benefit for annual mammography starting at age 40 outweighs (by 60-fold) the mortality risk from a radiation-induced breast cancer.²⁶

Benefit from biennial screening

Some research suggests overall benefit from biennial screening. One study that used Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer microsimulation was adapted to measure the incidence, mortality, and life-years gained for Canadian patients.²⁷ This model demonstrated that mortality reduction was linked to greater lifetime screens for breast cancer, but this applied primarily to patients aged 50 and older. Overall, a larger impact was observed by initiating screening at age 40 than by decreasing screening intervals.²⁷

Using modeling, Mandelblatt and colleagues demonstrated that biennial screening could capture most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm.²⁸ In another study in 2016, Mandelblatt and colleagues used updated and revised versions of these simulation models and maintained that biennial screening upheld 79.8% to 81.3% of the benefits of annual screening mammography but with fewer overdiagnoses and false-positive results.²⁵ The authors concluded that while biennial screening is equally effective for average-risk populations, there should be an evaluation of benefits and harms based on the clinical scenario (suggesting that annual screening for those at age 40 who carried elevated risk was similar to biennial screening for average-risk patients starting at age 50).²⁵

Another study that served to inform the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer recommendations evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational and modeling studies that assessed breast screening intervals.²⁹ The authors concluded that each screening interval has risks and benefits, with data suggesting more benefit with biennial screening for people aged 50 to 69 years and more possible harm with annual screening in younger people (aged 45–49).²⁹

Continue to: Benefit from annual screening...

However, these data conflict with other studies that demonstrate the benefit of annual compared with biennial screening mammography. One large retrospective review of prospectively collected data evaluated outcome differences based on mammography frequency.³⁰ For those undergoing annual versus biennial screening, the median tumor size was 11 mm (versus 15 mm), the percentage of lymph node metastasis was 14% (versus 24%), and cancer stage II or higher was 17% (versus 29%). The study overall demonstrated that annual screening resulted in lower recall rates (P<.0001) and detection of smaller tumors that carried a more favorable prognosis (P<.04).³⁰

Another observational study from 2004 that assessed data from 7 different mammography registries nationwide noted that, among those aged 40 to 49, patients who underwent biennial screening had an increased likelihood of late-stage disease compared with those with annual screening (28% vs 21%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01–1.81), although this discrepancy was not observed in people aged 50 or older.³¹

A study that critiqued the previous 2012 version of the USPSTF guidelines used CISNET modeling, which demonstrated a 39.6% mortality reduction with annual screening for those aged 40 to 84 versus 23.2% for biennial screening for those aged 50 to 74.⁵

More recent data also reflect these findings. A retrospective cohort study that evaluated patients aged 40 to 84 diagnosed with breast cancer found that those who previously underwent annual versus biennial screening mammography had lower incidences of late-stage diagnoses (24.0% vs 43.8%, respectively; P=.02), fewer interval cancers (10.5% vs 37.5%; P<.001), and smaller mean (SD) tumor diameter (1.4 [1.2] cm vs 1.8 [1.6] cm; P=.04).²¹ Postmenopausal patients in this cohort also demonstrated similar findings when comparing mammogram frequency. Although not significant, biennial (or greater) frequency of screening mammography also resulted in an increased likelihood of axillary lymph node dissection and chemotherapy.

Similarly, authors of another large prospective cohort study concluded that breast cancers diagnosed in premenopausal patients were more likely to be larger with less favorable prognostic characteristics (tumor size >15 mm, relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.37]; P=.002); any less favorable prognostic characteristics (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00–1.22]; P=.047), and higher stage (stage IIB or higher, RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01–1.63]; P=.04) for those who underwent biennial screening compared with breast cancers diagnosed by annual screening.³² However, this trend was not observed in postmenopausal patients not taking hormone therapy.³²

Some international studies also show more favorable outcomes with annual screening mammography. A Swedish study evaluated mammography screening intervals of 21 months compared with 18 or 12 months in patients aged 40 to 49.³³ Data showed an improved effectiveness of 1.6% to 9.8% for interval cancers and 2.9% to 17.4% for both interval and screening-detected cancers by reducing the screening frequency to 12 months, with authors suggesting a further reduction in breast cancer–related mortality rates for this age group.³³

Results from another descriptive study from Europe also showed increasing interval breast cancer rates with increasing screening intervals.³⁴ After a negative screen, the interval cancer rates and regional ranges for 0 to less than 12 months, 12 to less than 24 months, and 24 to less than 36 months per 1,000 screened were 0.55 (0.43–0.76), 1.13 (0.92–1.47), and 1.22 (0.93–1.57), respectively.³⁴

Finally, a study conducted in Canada evaluated interval breast cancers among people with dense breasts screened between 2008 and 2010.³⁵ Those with screening programs with policies that offered annual screening reported fewer interval cancers (interval cancer rate, 0.89 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.67–1.11) compared with those who had policies that used biennial screening (interval cancer rate, 1.45 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 1.19–1.72), which was 63% higher (P=.002). For those for whom radiologists recommended screening, interval cancer was lower for annual (0.93 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.71–1.16) versus biennial screening (1.70 per 1,000 [annualized]; 95% CI, 0.70–2.71) (P=.061).³⁵

Continue to: Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis...

Black patients have a worse breast cancer prognosis

Additional consideration should be given to populations with worse survival outcomes at baseline for whom screening mammography could play a significant role. In particular, Black people have similar rates of breast cancer compared with White people (127.8 cases per 100,000 vs 133.7 cases per 100,000, respectively) but have a 40% increased breast cancer–related mortality.⁸ The USPSTF recognizes this disparity and mentions it in their recommendations, encouraging health care clinicians to engage in shared decision making with Black patients and asserting that more research is needed on screening mammography in Black communities.¹⁵

While the age modification to the new guidelines better addresses the disparities that impact the Black community (such as increased likelihood of early-onset breast cancer³⁶ and increased rate of breast cancer diagnosis at first mammogram³⁷), the next obvious question is: Can groups with higher breast cancer mortality such as Black communities afford to undergo mammography every 2 years (as opposed to every year)?

Although some data specifically have evaluated the age of initiation and frequency of screening mammography among Black patients,^38,39 little data have specifically assessed outcomes for annual versus biennial screening among Black people. Despite these research gaps, risk factors among the Black community should be considered. There is an increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer that can contribute to higher mortality among Black communities.⁴⁰ Black people also tend to be diagnosed with more aggressive subtypes overall,^41,42 are more likely to have dense breasts,^43,44 have a higher likelihood of advanced stages at the time of diagnosis compared with White people,^8,45 and have a greater chance of diagnosis of a second primary or contralateral breast cancer^46-48—all risk factors that support the importance of regular and early-screening mammography.

How I counsel my patients

As Director of the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic, I am a gynecologist who primarily evaluates patients at increased risk for breast cancer (and other cancers). As an initial step, I strongly encourage all patients (especially Black patients and those of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as per the American College of Radiology recommendations⁹) to undergo risk assessment at age 25 to determine if they may be at increased risk for breast cancer. This first step may include genetic testing if the patient meets NCCN testing criteria based on personal or family history. If results are positive for a germline pathogenic variant, the timing and nature of breast screening would be based on NCCN recommendations for that particular variant (with possible modification of age of initiation based on family history). If testing is negative, lifetime risk assessment would then be performed using risk calculators—such as Tyrer-Cuzick—to determine if the patient meets criteria for intensive surveillance with supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging. If the patient is subsequently determined to be at average risk after these assessments, I recommend they undergo screening mammography annually starting at age 40. However, it must be recognized that risk may change over time. A patient’s risk can continue to be assessed over a lifetime—with changing family history, personal risk factors, and new discoveries in genetics.

Summary

Ultimately, it is reassuring that the USPSTF guidelines have been updated to be concordant with other national medical society recommendations. They reflect the increasing nationwide trends that clearly demonstrate the high overall prevalence of breast cancer as well as the increasing incidence of early-onset breast cancer.

The updated guidelines, however, do not reflect the entirety of breast cancer trends in this country. With breast cancer being the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, it is imperative to consider the data that demonstrate improved prognostics with annual compared with biennial mammography. Furthermore, the guidelines only begin to explore the disparities that Black patients face regarding breast cancer–related mortality. The risks of younger age at diagnosis, greater likelihood of aggressive subtypes, increased risk of second primary and contralateral breast cancer, and later stage at diagnosis must be seriously evaluated when counseling this patient population.

While the USPSTF recommendations for age at initiation reflect national statistics, recommendations by the ACR and NCCN more appropriately recognize that the benefits of annual screening outweigh the potential risks. Annual screening frequency should be adopted when counseling patients, particularly for the Black community. ●